2003 Deadlock Indicates Possible 2004 Budget Trouble for Bush

WASHINGTON -- As President Bush submits a new spending plan Monday for the federal government, he faces a festering problem: Congress has so far failed to turn his last budget into law.

The stalemate over federal spending for the current fiscal year, now in its fifth month, underscores the challenges Bush may encounter in persuading lawmakers to approve his blueprint for fiscal 2004.

Last year, Republicans blamed budget gridlock on the Democratic-led Senate. This year, with their party in full control of Congress, the heat will be on Republican lawmakers to produce legislation that abides by the strict spending limits Bush wants on programs other than those related to the military, domestic security and a handful of initiatives he announced in his State of the Union address.

Senior House Republicans, pointing to a federal budget deficit estimate of at least $199 billion this year, pledge to do that.

“In order for us to get back on track, the non-homeland security and non-defense items need to be restrained,” said Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), chairman of the House Budget Committee.

He likened the government to a family that must scrimp to make ends meet: “You gotta buy the groceries, but you don’t have to remodel the kitchen.”

But sticky negotiations between House and Senate Republicans over the long-delayed spending bill for fiscal 2003 show that keeping a tight budget is easier said than done.

In the absence of a deal, Congress has passed seven stopgap spending bills to keep much of the government operating on autopilot since the 2003 fiscal year began Oct. 1. The latest such “continuing resolution” expires Friday. An eighth stopgap bill, to run through Feb. 14, is widely expected.

Seeking to break the impasse, the Senate passed a $391-billion package Jan. 23 that combined and trimmed 11 annual spending bills that had died at the end of last year. The House is fighting to wedge its priorities into the Senate bill without raising the overall cost.

The Senate bill contains what many lawmakers consider a huge headache: a 2.9% across-the-board reduction in planned discretionary spending for nondefense government agencies.

That cutback, which Republicans supported and Democrats opposed, was written into the bill to make room for more money for education ($5 billion), ballot reform ($1.5 billion), firefighting ($825 million), farm subsidies ($3.1 billion) and other projects.

House Appropriations Chairman C.W. “Bill” Young (R-Fla.) opposes the 2.9% cut, saying it would inflict random pain on departments from Agriculture to Veterans Affairs.

John Scofield, a spokesman for Young, said the FBI, for instance, could be forced to lay off agents if the cut remains intact. “It would be devastating to a lot of agencies,” he said, “particularly law enforcement.”

But deleting the cutback would imperil GOP-endorsed education funding increases when Congress wants to help states meet new federal requirements to improve schools.

Such difficulties are likely to be magnified in the budget for fiscal 2004 if Bush holds Congress to the 4% limit on new discretionary spending he announced in the State of the Union address. That’s because much of Bush’s proposed increase is expected to go toward defense and homeland security, leaving other programs to compete for scarce new dollars.

“Look at the trouble they’re having” finding a compromise on fiscal 2003 spending, said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “That’s an omen of what’s to happen in the future when the cuts become more significant.”

Democrats say they expect some Republicans to be hard-pressed to justify a slowdown on domestic spending when Bush also is seeking tax cuts of $670 billion over the next 10 years. These critics say the tax cuts would benefit the wealthy, while spending cuts would disproportionately hurt the poor.

Pressure will come from other sources as well.

“We’re going to be hearing from school boards, superintendents, teachers, everybody” about their programs, Spratt said. “And it will be hard to turn them back.”

Also controversial, Democrats predict, will be spending decisions affecting police, firefighters and other “first responders” to emergencies.

Last year, citing the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration proposed more than $3.6 billion to help equip and train those state and local agencies. The Senate bill would supply most of that funding; House negotiators would like to trim it to make room for other law enforcement priorities.

But state and local agencies are pushing for even more money than the administration requested. A Federal Emergency Management Agency memo indicates the government could use $736 million more than the administration’s initial request. That could give Democrats more ammunition to argue that Republicans have shortchanged homeland security--a charge the White House dismisses.

Lawmakers are hoping to strike a deal on the fiscal 2003 spending bill by Valentine’s Day, when Congress is scheduled to begin a 10-day break. If they fail, some House Republicans, including Nussle, are threatening to push for another continuing resolution to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. That would amount to a cut in spending plans of billions of dollars.

With a Republican president and Republicans controlling Congress, an indefinite stalemate is unlikely. But the experience of Bush’s predecessor suggests that unilateral partisan control of Congress and the White House is no guarantee of smooth sailing on controversial budget bills.

President Clinton struggled to hold centrist Democrats behind his first major budget plan when his party held Congress in 1993, winning passage in both the House and Senate by just one vote.

Bush could encounter similar trouble with centrist Republicans.

“There is growing tension in [GOP] ranks as they look down the line and see the increasingly difficult choices the president’s plan presents us with,” said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. “Passing budgets around here is going to get much more difficult.”