Stewardship, not just spending should be lawmaker focus
Published June 21, 2014
by Matthew Leatherman, freelance writer, published in News and Observer, June 20, 2014.
Last September Rep. David Price wrote a national column warning that “the appropriations process – that hallmark of Congress’ constitutional authority and wellspring of our power to conduct oversight and set national priorities – is on life support and in danger of total collapse.” He was largely borne out when splinter Republicans in the House forced a shut down for much of the following month.
The nine months since then have seen Congress re-establish some consensus about the importance of this process and enter its 2015 cycle with more commitment to the regular order. But Congress hasn’t advanced nearly far enough that we can take our federal financial stability for granted.
First a word of context. The appropriations process is Congress’ arcane ritual for financing the government. Declaring that Congress’ authority and power rest on the process itself overstates things a bit. That distinction belongs more to the ends achieved, setting the federal balance sheet, more than the path Congress takes to get there. Still Price is correct that the process is critically important.
At least two factors make this matter. First, both parties have long agreed that this process is an acceptable way to reach our fiscal decisions. Congress members agree on little these days, even less when it comes to spending decisions, so those tools that still can be used to manage our finances are especially important. Second, while Congress can finance the government without going through this process, oversight is better and decisions are more deliberate when it proceeds in the regular order.
This is about stewardship, not just spending.
When shut down is the benchmark, it’s not hard to improve on things. That’s nearly the lowest of standards. But that’s where we were last October, and Congress is doing better now. House Republicans and Senate Democrats reached a deal on top-level spending in December. Both chambers published their plans for allocating resources among federal agencies and, while those plans differ in how they get there, both stick to the deal. The House and Senate have since taken action to advance these plans, a precursor to the inevitable negotiations later this year about detailed spending decisions.
Respecting the process, as Price encouraged his colleagues to do, has already benefited the country in several quiet but critical ways. Congress has stepped back from the threat of shutdown or default. This gives our lenders some badly needed reassurance about our national creditworthiness, controls the risk of interest rate spikes and adds a degree of stability to the economy. Discipline in the halls of Congress also is firmer, making it just a bit easier to reach decisions. And, even though appropriations are likely to be late again, the markets already know largely what to expect in 2015.
This is improvement. Congress has started to repair itself in the nine months since Price broadcast his warning.
Relapse will be easy, though, because Congress has gotten back to business as usual without resolving the problems that have made things break down over the past several years.
Politically, Republicans look no more ready to deal with President Obama than they were last year. The party is pouring its energy into winning the Senate this November, but, no matter how that turns out, President Obama still will be sitting across the table for another full budget cycle. And financially, there still is a long-term, structural mismatch between the government’s revenue and spending.
North Carolina’s Erskine Bowles underlined both challenges at a national conference a few weeks ago. Calling this a “lull in the action,” Bowles admonished Washington that “the markets will wake up and they will look at us and say you have a dysfunctional government, you’re addicted to debt, your fiscal plan is unsustainable, and you have no plan to deal with it.”
That’s daunting, yet it’s no excuse for relapsing into the dysfunction that Price lamented in September. Congress deserves to be judged according to whether it can handle these challenges without sabotaging itself and the economy again. One part of this standard is exercising the oversight and committing to the deliberation inherent in the appropriations process each year, not just this year.
Price was right to underscore this responsibility, and we have benefited from the improvement Congress has made since then. Our expectation should be more of the same. The same chronic problems that have seized Washington for the past several years are still lurking, and overcoming them is going to require some first-order compromises. Congress should be able to get there without tearing apart its process for appropriating federal money.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/20/3952603/stewardship-not-just-spending.html?sp=/99/108/
June 21, 2014 at 10:26 am
Norm Kelly says:
How can we tell immediately that this post was written by an N&D sympathizer and appeared in the N&D? Because it starts out with the lib lie talking point that has no basis in fact. Which is the definition of a lie, I know. Which is the only play left in the lefties' playbook these days. When you can't demonstrate to a majority of (legal) voters what your own position is on any given topic, you are left with 2 handy plays that libs always, always, ceaselessly revert to: lie about your opponents and allow non-citizens to vote calling the alternative racist or discriminatory.
The reference is to the most recent government shutdown. Who caused it? Who promoted it? Who refused to negotiate at all with their opposition? The answer to each of these questions is the Demoncrat party in Washington. Who first mentioned a government shutdown? A lib, the occupier as I recall. Who promoted a government shutdown every time he appeared in front of or sought out a mic? The senile Harry! Who repeatedly blamed the shutdown on Republicans? Every demon pol in Washington who voted against every single compromise! Who promoted the idea that the demons had nothing to do with the shutdown? Their allies in the used-to-be-mainstream media. Rags like the N&D. Who continues to print lies about the government shutdown? Rags like the N&D.
And who does this editorialist site as one of those committed to compromise? David Price. He has never met a tax hike he didn't like. He has never met a spending cut he endorsed. He came out in strong opposition to voter ID laws in NC. While he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about requiring a picture ID in order to pick up your prescription at the local drug store. It's racist to require to prove who your are to vote, but it's not racist to require to prove who you are to pick up your medication at the drug store. Even if the pharmacist knows you personally, you are required by law to show a picture id. Talk about a mind all mixed up and permanently set!
Speaking of badly needed stability, let's talk about some of the facts. Who was president when the only downgrade in our national credit rating occurred? The current occupier, that's who! What were some of the words used to describe the reason for the downgrade? They all had to do with fiscal irresponsibility, lack of spending control, huge, huge, ever-expanding deficit spending by Washington pols! None of the words used to describe the reason for the downgrade had ANYTHING to do with Republicans desire to get spending under control, nothing to do with keeping the central planners in line with the US Constitution. ALL of the words used to describe and explain the downgrade had to do with out-of-control demoncrat politicians and their desire to spend more & more & more with no limits on anything they wanted to do. Essentially, the credit agency decided to downgrade our national credit rating because they saw default in the future. Not because the Republicans wanted to get things in line, but because they saw the demon party irresponsibly spending significantly beyond our ability to pay, with stupid comments coming from the occupier about raising the debt ceiling having nothing to do with the debt increasing.
So, this editorial continues to refer to Price's editorial about a dysfunctional Washington. What has he done to compromise? What bills has he sponsored that shows he is willing to compromise? What has he done to alleviate some of the MAJOR scandals in Washington? What bills has he introduced to allow veterans to get service outside of the socialist VA health plan? How has Price responded to the need for negotiation? How has Price responded to getting our fiscal house in order? How has he responded to the negative, but intentional, affects of Obamascare? If the N&D post wants to hold up Price as some great negotiator, show us examples of what he has ALREADY done to move the ball forward. Show us how Price has introduced legislation to actually CUT GOVERNMENT spending and regulation of the private markets. Can't do it? There's a surprise.
I would love for some lib, any lib, to show me where I'm wrong on this. It would be welcome news. I won't hold my breath, cuz while I look great in blue, I don't look good blue.
