Budget Sausage

Ya gotta love federal budget time. I mean, where else can you get the American political process of pandering, posturing and politicking in such a condensed and meaningless format? The entire year goes by and each bloc incessantly demands that the opposition cut the fat, stop catering to special interests, start prioritizing, begin chopping at the debt, and most of all, “live within our means.” Noble sentiments all.

Then the budget is delivered to the legislature. It’s a huge document, dwarfing even the telephone books of major metropolitan areas. Congressional staffers, media pundits, citizen watchdogs and Capital janitors all scramble for camera shots of themselves picking up the massive tome. Then they retire to their Punxatawny burrows, supposedly to pore over the details and prepare their support or opposition as they guard every penny of the public’s sacred tax dollars. Does anybody believe that this massive missive will serve as anything but window dressing or DC paper-weight for the next ten months until the end-of-fiscal-year deadline arrives and Congress will once again have failed to enact a budget?

It isn’t going to happen this year. Just like it didn’t happen last year, or the year before. Why? The reason is the fundamental flaw in the American democratic process. There are two conflicting principals at work here and there is no easy solution to the conflict.

One, nobody likes to pay taxes. If low taxes are good, then no taxes are better. Nothing is more certain to lose a politician support from the electorate quicker than suggesting that government services don’t come for free. Now, even the most politically naïve among us will, if pressed, admit that they want government services. They might not want all of them, but everyone has a short list of things the government does that they would like to continue. It might be schools, or healthcare, or defense from terrorists, or preservation of endangered wombats, or a retirement guaranteed when they reach their dotage. Everybody wants something but no one wants to pay. The best alternative is getting someone else to pay. Hence, America’s convoluted tax code.

Two, nobody wants less than they already get. We want more, not less. If we get hospitalization, we want prescriptions. If we get schools, we want more subsidy for our tuition. If we get welfare, we sure don’t want to lose that check—we would much rather see an increase to meet our never ending need for fast foods and hip-hop CDs. Suggesting that balancing the budget without paying more taxes might mean a reduction or elimination of anything is suicide for the congress-critter.

The planned spending of an entity the size of our federal government is huge. The programs in operation number in the hundreds of thousands. There is even one twit in a clownish, question-mark-festooned suit who has made a business of publishing huge books telling you how to get the government’s “free money.” The only way to reduce the deficit and nibble at the debt without raising taxes is to cut some of these programs. Eliminate duplication, cut overhead, improve efficiency, consolidate functions, reduce dependency, etc. You get the picture. But, each place you touch with the budget knife produces a squeal. Probe here, jab there, you’ll find no place without an ox beneath the budget entry resisting being gored.

Dispute over priorities is inevitable. Ask the man in the street about the budget and he will look at you like you are insane. Provide him with some forced alternatives and you’ll get whatever result you want to help shape your political party’s priorities. Should we pursue democracy in Iraq or reduce federal funding for higher education? Shall we subsidize Amtrak or promote exploration for renewable energy sources? Would we be better off with a new carrier or an extra squadron of F/A-22 Raptors? You will get answers and if you make your pairings to suit your agenda, you can create a justification for whatever course you want the nation to take—and in the process you can smear the opposition for their lack of foresight in meeting the needs of the people.

It’s a dirty business and there is no way to make it better. It was Otto von Bismark that said, "People who enjoy eating sausage and obey the law should not watch either being made". Keep in mind that passage of the federal budget is the ultimate example of making a law.