Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:50:15.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Congressional Budget Process in an Era of Surpluses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Andrew J. Taylor
Andrew J. Taylor*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How the federal government's fiscal health has improved! As recently as 1992, the United States experienced its largest ever current-dollar annual unified budget deficit of $290 billion. At the close of its last fiscal year, on September 30 1999, the nation's government recorded a budget surplus of $124 billion. More significantly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected healthy on—budget surpluses—that is, no money will have to be taken out of the Social Security trust fund and revenues will still exceed expenditures—well into the second decade of the new century.

The causes of this turnaround are well understood. The record-long economic expansion of the 1990s has boosted revenues dramatically, the end of the Cold War lowered the demand for defense spending, and the budget legislation of 1990, 1993, and 1997 generally cut spending and raised taxes (Parks 2000; Schick 2000).

What Washington does with the extra money depends greatly on electoral outcomes over the coming years. Congressional Republicans—along with their party's presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush—have promised tax cuts, while Democrats have called for higher levels of domestic discretionary spending. But there are areas of agreement. Both parties wish to protect the Social Security trust fund in a so-called “lock box” and both have expressed their commitment to pay off the publicly-held debt. It is likely, therefore, that future incarnations of divided government might protect the surplus by producing a default fiscal policy based primarily on these two proposals.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 575 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article was written during my year in Washington as the American Political Science Association's William A. Steiger Congressional Fellow. Many individuals helped shape my thinking about the subject and I would like to express my gratitude to the most influential of them here. Peter Sperry, Doug Bandow, Bob Reischauer, Michael Boskin, Stan Collender, Allen Schick, Jim Thurber, Jim Saturno, and Hank Cox assisted me as I listened to and talked with them. On the Hill, I benefited greatly from hanging around the House Budget Committee and interacting with a number of members and staff, especially Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), Chairman John Kasich (R-OH), and, on the other side of the aisle, Rep. David Price (D-NC) and Ranking Member John Spratt (D-SC). Shays' chief of staff, Peter Carson, and the committee's staff director, Wayne Struble, also provided insightful analysis. Jeff Biggs did a superb job helping me best exploit my opportunity on the Hill. In addition, Charlie Coe of N.C. State and Charlie Perusse of the North Carolina Legislature's Fiscal Research Division have taught me much about state budgets. Despite all the help, the usual caveat applies.

References

Art, Robert J. 1989. “The Pentagon: The Case for Biennial Budgeting.” Political Science Quarterly 104(Summer): 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandow, Doug. 2000. Interview with author, March 28.Google Scholar
Bass, Charles. 2000. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Rules. “Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight.” <http://www.house.gov/rules/rules-trans09.htm>. 106th Cong., 2nd sess. Accessed: March 30.Google Scholar
Baumann, David. 2000. “The Two-Year Itch.” The National Journal, February 26.Google Scholar
Boskin, Michael. 2000. Interview with author, April 5.Google Scholar
Collender, Stan. 2000a. “Should We All Repent Now, Before It's Too Late?” <http://nationaljournal.com/members/buzz/budget.htm>. National Journal.com. Accessed: March 21.Google Scholar
Collender, Stan. 2000b. “The Freedom to Campaign Act.” <http://nationaljournal.com/members/buzz/budget.htm>. National Journal.com. Accessed: March 7.Google Scholar
Collender, Stan. 2000c. “The New Budget Process.” <http://nationaljournal.com/members/buzz/budget.htm>. National Journal.com. Accessed: April 4.Google Scholar
Frenzel, Bill. 2000. Remarks. Presented at “Presidential and Congressional Budgets: Priorities in Conflict,” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hood, M.V. III, Morris, Irwin L., and Neeley, Grant W. 1999. “Penny Pinching or Politics? The Line-Item Veto and Military Construction Appropriations.” Political Research Quarterly 52(December): 753–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, Roy T. 1998. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Budget. “Converting the Concurrent Budget Resolution into a Joint Resolution: Should the Budget Be a Law?” 105th Cong., 2nd sess. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Moakley, John Joseph. 2000. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Rules. “Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight.” <http://www.house.gov/rules/rules-trans09.htm>. 106th Cong., 2nd sess. Accessed: March 30.Google Scholar
Palazzolo, Daniel J. 1999. Done Deal? The Politics of the 1997 Budget Agreement. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Panetta, Leon. 2000. Remarks. Presented at “Presidential and Congressional Budgets: Priorities in Conflict,” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Parks, Daniel J. 2000. “A Legacy of Budget Surpluses and Thriving Markets.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 5, 228-33.Google Scholar
Reischauer, Robert. 1993. U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. “The Budget Process.” 103rd Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Reischauer, Robert. 2000a. “The Phantom Surplus.” The New York Times, January 28, A23.Google Scholar
Reischauer, Robert. 2000b. Interview with author, April 18.Google Scholar
Schick, Allen. 1995. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Schick, Allen. 2000. “A Surplus, if We Can Keep It: How the Federal Budget Surplus Happened.” Brookings Review 19(Winter): 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuman, Howard E. 1992. Politics and the Budget: The Struggle Between the President and Congress. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1997. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2000. “Unorthodox Lawmaking, Budget Bills, and Comprehensive Policy Making in the 1990s.” Presented at “Presidential and Congressional Budgets: Priorities in Conflict,” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sperry, Peter. 2000. Interview with author, March 30.Google Scholar
Taylor, Andrew J. 1999. “The Ideological Roots of Deficit Reduction Policy.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Thurber, James A. 1997. “Centralization, Devolution, and Turf Protection in the Congressional Budget Process.” In Congress Reconsidered, 6th ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron, and Caiden, Naomi. 1997. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar