BUDGET BRIEFING

The scenario is a frightening one: A shutdown of the meat and poultry industry as U.S. inspectors are furloughed. Cancellation of federal scholarship grants for 1.4 million needy college students. Millions of infants and children deprived of immunization shots. A shortage of controllers brings long delays in air travel. A one-third cut in government payments to farmers, and lengthy unpaid leaves for nearly everyone in the federal work force. With U.S. troops on a war-like footing in Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon would have to absorb a reduction of one-sixth of its $300-billion budget.

These are just a few of the horrible results predicted if there is no budget agreement by Oct. 1 and an estimated $100 billion in spending cuts take effect as provided by the Gramm-Rudman law, say key members of Congress.

“Americans at all stages and walks of life will suffer,” asserted Rep. Silvio O. Conte (R-Mass.), ranking GOP member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Some federal programs--such as Social Security benefits and means-tested programs such as Medicaid--would be exempt from cuts and Medicare reductions would be limited by law.

ANNUAL RITUAL: Considering the cataclysmic consequences if the budget ax falls, however, most members of Congress and high officials in the nation’s capital are relatively nonchalant about this annual political minuet of dire predictions.

First, the Bush Administration already has tried to use the threat of massive spending cuts to prod congressional negotiators toward an agreement on a $500-billion deficit reduction package. For many, the repeated warnings remind them of the legendary boy who cried wolf.

Second, it is within Congress’ power to delay the spending cuts while negotiators continue to meet in search of an elusive accord. Because the discussions have blocked the passage of appropriations bills to keep the government running beyond Oct. 1, Congress is expected to pass a short-term extension of spending authority known as a “continuing resolution.”

Democrats drafting this legislation say it probably will include a temporary waiver of Gramm-Rudman’s requirements for automatic spending cuts, thus putting off the fateful day of reckoning in hopes of reaching a bipartisan accord.

Some House Republicans and Senate GOP leader Bob Dole, however, want President Bush to veto any continuing resolution that would stop the cuts from taking place as scheduled Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year begins.

Only if the across-the-board spending cuts went into effect and started to hurt, these Republicans insist, would the longstanding stalemate be broken and a settlement of the budget crisis be forced. On Monday, the White House picked up on the theme and threatened to veto legislation that would delay the cuts.

OUTLOOK: Assuming a veto of the continuing resolution could be sustained, however, the process would focus public attention on Bush and the Republicans as the triggering agents for the dreaded cuts just a few weeks before voters go to the polls on Nov. 6 for mid-term elections. Another argument against allowing the spending ax to fall is that, by law, half of the cuts must come from the Defense Department and few believe the President would allow that to happen.

If spending cutbacks already drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget take effect Oct. 1, the President would be required to issue the final directive himself on Oct. 15--providing another two weeks to reach agreement.

In the past, much smaller, more limited spending reductions have taken effect, including a $14-billion cutback last year. Despite the anguish among federal employees who already have received furlough notices, however, the smart money in Washington is betting that the President and Congress will find some way to avoid all the pain.