News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
The State of Reform
Download Unite America’s free report
Download Unite America's free report analyzing the impact of four key political reforms.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
iStock/Getty Images Plus
"Budget reform is a tough nut to crack," argues Kevin Kosar.
The broken budget process is a democracy reform issue
Dec 11 2019
Kosar is vice president of policy at the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan and pro-free-market public policy research organization. He's also a co-director of the nonpartisan Legislative Branch Capacity Working Group.
It is difficult to overstate how wrecked the federal budget process is. Late last month, President Trump signed a 30-day stopgap funding measure to dodge a government shutdown. This was the second time this autumn that Congress and the president had to resort to such a continuing resolution. Governing through short-term spending bills has become the rule in recent years, and not passing a congressional budget resolution (or spending plan) has become the new normal.
The wrecked process has produced alarming results. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has predicted that our country will have a trillion dollar deficit this year. Payments on the $22 trillion federal debt are more than $325 billion a year — which, to put it in context, is more than quintuple the budget of the Department of Education. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal workers' retirement benefits and so-called food stamps) account for about 60 percent of all spending. These mandatory outlays have swallowed nearly 90 percent of federal spending. "Fiscal democracy," as scholar Eugene Steurle terms it, is clearly eroding.
<p>Budget reform is a tough nut to crack. Inevitably, fixing the process means tampering with the authority of the Appropriations committees and subcommittees, to say nothing of the congressional Budget committees. Last year, a special<a href="https://www.legbranch.org/2018-3-6-new-resource-on-joint-select-committee-on-budget-and-appropriations-reform/" target="_blank"> joint committee</a> on budget reform spent an entire year trying to hash out bipartisan reforms. Its efforts were<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/29/ryan-budget-reform-999258" target="_blank"> scuttled</a> when the Senate's leadership failed to come together to schedule a vote, quite possibly due to objections from particular appropriators.</p><p>So it is that the budget process has grown more dysfunctional, and debts worse, to the dismay of nearly everyone on Capitol Hill and in America. It is a wicked collective action problem that will eventually lead the United States into a financial calamity. It's also yet another threat to our democratic norms that is sapping our capacity to direct resources to new problems.</p><p>There is a glimmer of hope however. The Senate Budget Committee recently<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/senate-budget-committee-approves-historic-bipartisan-budget-reforms" target="_blank"> reported</a> a budget reform bill. The Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act would make <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2765?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22Bipartisan+Congressional+Budget+Reform+Act%5C%22%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1" target="_blank">incremental changes to budgeting</a>. The bill's move from committee to the Senate floor was<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/senate-budget-committee-approves-historic-bipartisan-budget-reforms" target="_blank"> hailed</a> by the GOP chairman, Mike Enzi of Wyoming:</p><p>"This legislation would take several positive steps toward a more active, thoughtful, and functional budget process. It represents a package of necessary, pragmatic, and significant reforms that do not tilt the scales toward any one party, ideology, or policy outcome." </p><p>Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island was also enthused, especially because the bill "includes the first-ever process for bipartisan work on the budget, which would look at the main drivers of federal deficits: revenue levels, tax spending, health spending, and annual appropriated spending. It would also take a much-needed step in neutralizing the threat of a federal debt default."</p><p>The law now requires Congress to adopt a budget resolution by April 15 each year. Congress rarely meets this deadline because the budget is so big and complicated. Enzi's bill would give the budget resolution a two-year life span. It also would require Congress to set a limit on the size of the national debt relative to gross domestic product. If that ratio is going to be breached, Congress would be empowered to use the expeditious reconciliation process to trim spending.</p><p>The bill also would end the politically toxic<a href="https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Final-Debt-Ceiling-R-Sheet.pdf" target="_blank"> debt ceiling dramas</a>, wherein legislators are forced to vote to raise the debt limit lest the country default. Instead, the debt ceiling would adjust automatically based on the budget spending plan. And no longer would the budget be a resolution that could be evaded; the measure would have the president sign it into binding law.</p><p>The prospects for the bill are unclear.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2765/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22Bipartisan+Congressional+Budget+Reform+Act%5C%22%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1" target="_blank"> Nineteen senators</a> have come out in support, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer may not act without more stepping up. Some Democrats also may have beefs with one provision. As National Journal<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/enzis-long-shot-push-for-budget-reform" target="_blank"> reports</a>:</p><p>"The measure's potential impact on social programs is a sticking point for Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, missed the bill's markup. But he and other senior Democrats on the panel, including Sens. Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, and Debbie Stabenow, oppose a key provision that would force Congress to use budget reconciliation, as it did to overhaul federal tax law in 2017, to cut spending or raise revenue during election years to meet deficit reduction goals. An effort to strike the provision failed in committee, with the bill's supporters in both parties outgunning Democrats."</p><p>In the House, Budget Chairman John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat, and ranking Republican Steve Womack of Arkansas both have tried to forge budget reform legislation. Nonetheless, the House still may prove a significant hurdle to reform. It is unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chamber's most potent Democrats want to enact companion legislation or even a close substitute to Enzi's bill.</p><p>A failure to move budget reform legislation soon could set back such efforts for years. Enzi will retire a year from now, and his patience and lengthy bipartisan outreach were critical to crafting and building support for his year's measure.</p><p>Indubitably, the country would be well served if Congress enacted budget reform that would put an end to feckless and reckless budgeting. An optimist might imagine Republicans and Democrats, who each control half of the Capitol, would see the political advantage of presenting the public with a major policy victory in the election year. Congress overcame partisan rancor to<a href="https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/11/26/how-social-security-was-saved-and-might-be-again/" target="_blank"> save Social Security</a> and to<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-113SPRT89394/pdf/CPRT-113SPRT89394.pdf" target="_blank"> improve the tax code</a> in the 1980s; maybe our national legislature can do it again.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Zillow
A one-bedroom, one-bath apartment totaling 460 square foot will run you $1,950 on Capitol Hill.
Congress should get a pay raise, whether they deserve it or not
Jun 18 2019
Drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at New America, and Kosar, vice president of policy at the R Street Institute, are co-directors of the nonpartisan Legislative Branch Capacity Working Group.
You've surely heard the old line, "The best Congress money can buy." Typically, it's said sardonically. In the classic formulation, it's not your money doing the buying. It's special interests and lobbyists forking over the dough. In exchange, they get the best Congress they can buy – for them.
But what if it were your money? How much should you, the taxpayers, be willing to pay? If you want a Congress that works for you, can you get it on the cheap?
The debate is not an academic one. House Democrats and Republican leaders have proposed boosting legislators' pay by providing a cost of living adjustment of $4,500. The current annual salary of $174,000 has not changed since 2009. Adjusted for inflation, that amounts to a 16 percent decrease.
<p>The basic <a data-linked-post="2638795569" href="https://thefulcrum.us/congress/member-pay-congress" target="_blank">case for a congressional pay raise</a> is the same as for a raise at in any business. The more you pay, the more you can retain and attract the most talented people. Certainly, money is only one of many motivating forces. But a higher salary makes any job more appealing and more sustainable.</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>As many members have learned, $174,000 doesn't go as far as it first might appear. Serving in Congress means that you need two residences, one in your home state and one in Washington, and the one in D..C doesn't come cheap: One-bedroom apartments start at $2,000 a month – and that will get you a basement apartment in an edgy neighborhood.</p><p> Some members solve their D.C. housing problem with cots in their offices, but that's a poor solution and can create creepy situations for their aides and the custodians. Other members solve their housing cost problem by being independently wealthy and able to afford two homes, no problem. But this means Congress often becomes a job for a combination of wealthy elites who can afford it and passionate ideologues who believe their cause justifies their expenses.</p><p>Compensation is also relative. Most members could earn more working at a lobbying firm, in business or practicing law. They have the experience and connections to do so. And while some turnover is healthy in Congress, it should come from electoral competition, not from decent public-spirited lawmakers <a href="https://www.issueone.org/why-we-left/" target="_blank">growing so dissatisfied</a> that a higher private-sector salary seems too good to turn down. <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775788/revolving-door-lobbying" target="_blank">Record numbers of legislators</a> are now going to work for big bucks on K Street.</p><p>For many talented individuals out in the country, the personal costs of serving in Congress are extremely high – the strain on family life paramount among them. Many members have given up rewarding and well-paying jobs to come to Capitol Hill. As Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues convincingly in a new book, "Who Wants to Run?", higher congressional wages would attract more qualified and also more moderate candidates, for whom the higher pay would justify the challenges of running. (The passionate ideologues are more likely to run no matter what.)</p><p>Certainly, the politics of congressional pay are forbidding. An annual salary of $174,000, after all, is not bupkes. For most normal people, this six-figure compensation looks like an impossibly high and generous reward for a job where the popular stereotype is of rampant do-nothingism from lazy egotists, living large on the taxpayer dime. Realities aside, the perception makes for powerful politics.</p><p>Some propose making House members and senators earn their salary by tying it to various performance indicators, such as adopting budgets on time or achieving other legislative goals. But this misses the point. It only makes being a member an even less attractive idea for many decent people, further restricting the pool of talent willing to consider serving.</p><p>In the past, all increases have had bipartisan leadership support, thereby blunting the electoral consequences. But it's now been 10 years since members have given themselves a raise — a stalemate likely driven by the bitter partisan gamesmanship, with any pay boost a campaign issue waiting to happen.</p><p>This is, of course, penny wise and pound foolish. In a $4.1 trillion (with a T) federal budget, even a doubling of congressional salaries would be a rounding error on a rounding error. If it attracted and retained more top-notch talent to Congress – people capable of leading tough oversight to root out wasteful spending – that would yield tremendous savings for taxpayers. If it helped Congress solve more problems and improve the lives of citizens, that would be money well spent. Clearly, what we've got now isn't working. </p><p> More broadly, the federal budget includes just over $2 billion a year for the House and the Senate combined. That's one half of 1 percent of total government spending – and considerably less than the $3.4 billion a year spent on lobbying. Lobbyists have power because they pay for expertise and talent. Congress pays little, and suffers from high staff turnover and low staff experience. It's a recipe for special-interest dominance.</p><p>Perhaps if Congress can't agree on a salary increase, it might agree on other compensation supplements, such as a housing stipend, or even building a congressional dorm, where members could stay rent-free while they're in town. </p><p>There are few bargains in this world. Mostly, you get what you pay for. Congress is no exception. Somebody's dollars will purchase the best Congress that money can buy. It should be the American taxpayers.</p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less