More Issues In the News

The federal budget - in contrast to spending bills that actually deliver money - is largely a political document because it makes promises that are often ignored in last-minute legislative bartering.

But that doesn't prevent bare-knuckle fights about provisions of a spending blueprint that carry the weight only of a resolution, not law. The interests, as the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill would have predicted, are local from Maine to Alaska - particularly in an election year.

Congress approved - by the narrowest of margins - $39 billion in spending reductions over five years as part of the last spending plan. Nobody talked about trimming Medicare or Medicaid this year.

Instead, lawmakers succeeded in tacking on a laundry list of local-interest provisions - or at least advocating for them.

SPECTER TACKS ON $7 BILLION

The biggest-ticket item was from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who successfully added $7 billion for health and education programs.

Remember: This isn't actually the money for those programs, just an upper ceiling that spending bills might reflect. Specter's amendment indicates a commitment because he is also the Appropriations subcommittee chairman who will divide up the money later this year.

Lawmakers who are campaigning this year proposed several high-profile commitments.

Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., won amendments totaling $6.7 billion to boost defense spending.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., successfully added $823 million to the veterans health system and restored $900 million that Bush eliminated from a Justice Department program for crime-fighting grants.

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Republican Caucus, offered a successful amendment to add $1.3 billion to the Community Development Block Grant program, which pays for low-income housing projects, for a total of $4.3 billion.

Santorum also lost a vote to add $550 billion for a total of $1.45 billion for Amtrak, which employs 3,000 in Pennsylvania and has its second-busiest station in Philadelphia.

Northern lawmakers also won approval of a $3.8 billion increase for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, for a total of $5.1 billion.

HIGH PERSONAL COST FOR SNOWE

By comparison, an amendment from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, came cheaply.
It could even save the government money. Her provision gave the secretary of health and human services the power to negotiate lower drug prices through Medicare.

The problem is that Congress explicitly prohibited negotiations when it created the prescription-drug benefit in 2003, and the House is unlikely to change course even if that chamber can agree to a budget resolution.

While inexpensive, Snowe's victory carried a personal cost. In order to advocate additional funds for veterans, heating assistance and drug negotiations, she also had to support a provision allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"In the end, I ultimately had to balance the myriad issues that are critical to the people of Maine and the nation," Snowe said. "This budget is not one I would have written, but ultimately it is a significant step forward in meeting the health care needs of seniors and veterans in Maine and across the country."

COLLINS REJECTS DRILLING

Her support drew criticism from environmental groups that viewed the budget as little more than a vehicle for drilling. The advantage that the budget offers is protection from unlimited debate in the Senate, so a 51-vote majority could approve drilling rather than a 60-vote majority needed to end a filibuster.

"This is not the last battle to stop this onerous provision from being enacted into law, and I vow to work to remove it from the final budget,"
Snowe said.

In contrast, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, opposed the budget because of Arctic drilling and another provision that Mainers sought unsuccessfully dealing with tax cuts.

Advocacy groups - including the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club's state chapter and Environment Maine - praised her drilling decision.

"We applaud Sen. Collins for staying true to her commitment to protect the Arctic refuge," said Brownie Carson, executive director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. "It is difficult to understand why Sen. Snowe would vote for this terrible piece of energy policy."

GAP BETWEEN THEORY, REALITY

The tax-cut provision Collins and Snowe had sought goes by the shorthand "pay-go." The policy had been in place during the 1990s, but was ignored after the turn of the century because of budget surpluses. It would require any tax cut to be offset by spending cuts or revenue enhancements elsewhere.

But Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., successfully framed "pay-go" as a demand for tax increases, so Congress would extend lower rates on stock dividends and capital gains that congressional leaders hope to approve this year.

"Given the enormous size of the federal deficit, we must maintain a high level of scrutiny when making decisions about tax cuts and increased spending," Collins said.

The budget is almost entirely a political document because Congress often ignores its specific figures when adopting spending bills.

But setting at least theoretical limits on spending aims for consensus between the House and Senate on how much each department deserves.

"The best way to do this is to have a budget resolution that is agreed upon," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "That way, everyone knows what the ground rules and what the targets are up front."

Starting this week, it's the House's turn to debate a budget. But it's unclear when or if that will occur.