QandO

June 17, 2004

Kerry on Bush "secret plan" to cut spending in 2006
Posted by McQ

A breathless Kerry website story tells us "Bush’s Secret Budget Cuts Exposed" ... by none other than, well Kerry I suppose ... since its not evident at all the story his site references.

The "secret budget" plan: An OMB Circular giving agencies 2006 budget planning guidance. Kerry and the boyz characterize it as:

A leaked White House memo shows that if George Bush is re-elected, he is planning large cuts in many vital federal programs, including homeland security, homeownership, education, and scientific research.

Hmmm .... maybe its just me but something which is headed "OMB Circular A-11 (2004)" and entitled "Budget Procedures Memorandum No. 870" with a subject line of "Planning Guidance for the FY 2006 Budget" really doesn't sound like anything but a routine document which is most likely issued in some form or fashion every year for budget planning purposes.

Unless you're the Kerry campaign. Then its a "secret" memo which "details cuts" and "breaks promises."

All of this hyperbole is founded in a WaPo story which essentially headlines the fact that the guidance for 2006 puts "cuts in domestic spending" on the table.

What the memo's guidance says is this:

"Assume accounts are funded at the 2006 level specified in the 2005 Budget database," the memo informs federal program associate directors and their deputies. "If you propose to increase funding above that level for any account, it must be offset within your agency by proposing to decrease funding below that level in other accounts."

Yes, that's right ... assume your agency is funded at the 2005 level and then if you want to increase spending for one of your agencies accounts, "it must be offset within your agency by proposing to decrease funding below that level in other accounts."

Essentially a spending freeze at worst right? Well yes, unless you're a democrat. Democrats, you see, have redefined 'cuts' to mean not increasing spending. So if your 2005 budget doesn't increase spending, you're "cutting spending" in the new left lexicon.

And note the lead paragraph from the WaPo story:

The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year. [emphasis mine]

Well, according to that basic guidance I quoted that's just not true. That guidance says no increases in spending for one account unless you offset it with cuts in another account. While some "domestic programs" may see 'cuts' in their funding levels, it will be done within the agency because of priority differences. In other words, given the same pile of money as 2005, each agency boss is to prioritize the spending in his or her agency according to the policy guidance of the President.

Hey ... isn't that what everyone has been yelling about on the right? Reprioritize. Freeze spending. Get spending back under control? Seems that's hardly a 'secret'.

Anyway ... while the Kerry campaign attempts to create a politically expedient "secret cabal" of budgeteers slashing away at domestic spending, consider the context in which OMB puts the memo:

J.T. Young, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the memo, titled "Planning Guidance for the FY 2006 Budget," is a routine "process document" to help agency officials begin establishing budget procedures for 2006. In no way should it be interpreted as a final policy decision, or even a planning document, he said.

"Agencies have asked for this sort of direction," Young said. "Budgeting is basically a year-long process, and you have to start somewhere. They'll get more guidance as the year goes along."

In other words, business as usual in the world of government budgets ... ridiculous presidential campaign posturing notwithstanding.

Read the whole memo ... it should be good news to those on the right who want constrain mandatory and discretionary spending. It appears that is the aim of the budget guidance. It says, in essense, work smarter with the money you have and be able to lay out some very good reasons if you ask for an increase.

It also lists as the top priorities: "winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland, and strengthening the economy".

Per the WaPo story, discretionary spending has risen 39% in the last three years ... there is no excuse for that nor is there any excuse to continue it. That's one of the right's main gripes with Bush. What this guidance is attempting to do is freeze spending at a particular level and keep it there.

Sounds good to me.

TrackBack