Since Thursday was the official first day of autumn, we can now begin to enjoy all the traditional fall rituals. Soon the air will get colder (significantly so in NH), the leaves will begin to drop from the branches, and congress will run out of money for next year's budget. The so called federal budget surplus that numerous politicians proudly claimed credit for, seems to have faded and shriveled up just like yesterday's autumn leaves. Many American citizens, including myself, are wondering why Congress has run out of money, and how it is that the budget surplus could have disappeared so quickly. The reason you are most likely to hear during the upcoming 2000 election is "It's _____'s fault, the surplus was spent." (Fill-in the blank with the appropriate political party and corresponding branch of government, depending on who is answering the question.)
Like almost all of the problems with government today, the disappearance of the surplus can be attributed to a complex combination of events. To begin with, it is important to remember that the $14 billion estimated surplus refers only to non-social security funds. Congress has pledged to avoid using social security money for other things in the budget, in order to preserve the system, at least until around 2030. If we are lucky, there will be enough money to provide social security for our parents' retirement years (who knows if there will still be a social security system by the time the class of 2003 enters retirement.)
So where did the $14 billion in non-social security surplus go? There's no mystery about $12 billion congress appropriated in order to provide our armed forces with adequate resources for the crisis in Kosovo. Now that we are done blowing up the country, we can devote our resources to rebuilding it (luckily, we aren't obligated to send Serbia any money as long as Milosevic is in power.)
Although most people would agree that money for Kosovo was an unexpected "emergency," several other "emergency" spending measures also helped to shrink our surplus. These unexpected "emergencies" included the 2000 census (even though we've been doing the census since 1790), certain veterans' bills, and farm relief money.
The biggest cause behind Congress' budget problems, is the budget spending caps that were set in 1997 in order to limit the amount of money Congress could spend in any given year. Luckily, our crafty Congressmen and women have come up with a number of creative solutions for getting around the caps. For example, an accounting technique called "advanced appropriations" would more or less borrow money from 2001 in order to pay for things during the year 2000. This technique is particularly silly since next year's budget will almost certainly include money for the areas hit by Hurricane Floyd, whose destruction may lead to $6 billion or more in damages. Deferring this year's debt to next year just means even more of a budget crunch this time next fall.
Given this "rock and a hard place" decision, some people might ask why Congress can't simply cut spending. The answer for that can be found in the campaign finance system. With the primary season right around the corner, neither political party is looking for any enemies among their interest group friends. Congress' solution is to cut the budget in areas that won't affect their campaign funds, such as Medicare, food stamps, and child-care services for low-income working families. But it seems unfair to punish the poorest Americans at a time when they already have the worst living conditions. A recent New York Times article (Sept. 5, 1999) reported that the bottom 60 percent of Americans have seen their incomes decreasing, despite the fact that the economy is the strongest it has been in years. The White House, which has an entirely different set of campaign donators (some of whom may be from other countries), has suggested raising the taxes on cigarettes in order to fund the rest of the budget. Such a tax might be popular among non-smokers, but it is often pointed to as yet another tax on the poor, since poorer people are more likely to be smokers.
There is a point to all of these political observations. First off, politicians should stop wasting time on tax cuts when it's clear they can't balance the budget even without a tax cut. In numerous polls, the American people have said that they are more interested in balancing the budget, then seeing tax cuts. Second of all, we should get rid of the spending caps. If they are simply going to be avoided using accounting techniques, what is the point, (aside from pretending to balance the budget) of even having the budget caps?
I realize that advocating irresponsible budget spending is not going to get me elected anytime soon. I'm not saying deficit spending is a good thing, and I definitely believe the campaign finance system should be reformed (there's enough debate on that issue for 20 years' worth of columns). I am also worried that if the government does not seem to be able to balance the budget in a year with unprecedented economic growth, what is going to happen when the next recession hits? Certainly there are things the government can do to continue to lower costs, (i.e. stop airlifting the president's bullet proof limousine to Africa). As for this year, I think the only honest solution is to stop with the games and plead guilty to not balancing the budget. After all, the 106th Congress is already guilty of passing almost zero legislation over the course of the year. Maybe next year we will have fewer wars, less poverty, less destruction from mother nature, and a Congress that realizes they are elected to make laws, not speeches. And maybe next fall, Congress won't be so quick to rake in the leaves off the surplus tree.
