In the Broadway musical “Gypsy,” based on the life of stripper Gypsy Rose Lee, one of the standout songs is “You gotta get a gimmick.” Congress may be far from New York (and far from Broadway), but it's not afraid to embrace showbiz techniques. This political theater housed in a round dome is full of gimmicks.
Rose's gimmick was “less is more” – clothes. Congress's argument is “the more the better.” The more gimmicks, the better. The more baubles and bangles you can hang and attract the masses, the better. The more wavy lines on the graph that are not shown anywhere, the better. The more confusing budget terms there are, the better.
As I discussed in a previous column, ignoring the Seize Control Act is the latest in a move by Elon Musk, who was selected by President-elect Donald Trump to head the non-governmental agency DOGE. This is a countermeasure.
I am not saying that Congress should deliberately devise tricks to cover the eyes of the people. Having been directly involved at the staff level in many of the so-called budget reform efforts for more than 30 years, I am very serious about Congress finding new ways to reduce government spending and even balance the budget. I can prove that. But we all know very well where our well-intentioned paving of the way ends up. It is not about reaching zero deficit nirvana.
Looking back at the complicated history of Congressional budgeting, one can only wonder, “What on earth were they thinking?” As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Congressional Budget Reform and Foreclosure Control Act of 1974, it is fitting that we review this situation. This law was Congress's response to the growth of an “imperial presidency” dating back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon. Johnson and Richard Nixon were slowly chipping away at Congress's core constitutional powers.
The 1974 Act established a budget calendar for each fiscal year that set spending and deficit limits, revenue targets, and deadlines for meeting debt limits. If Congress did not legally approve the president's seizure (reversal of spending) within 45 days, the funds would be released and spent. To this day, the Budget Act remains the tree on which Congress hangs all its shiny new ornaments (gimmicks). The idea is that if one doesn't work, try another.
My favorite (serious) gimmick was the one included in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which was sponsored by the bill's sponsor, Sen. Phil Gramm (R. It was named after Senator Warren Rudman (R.N.H.) of Texas. and Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, D.S.C.
The mechanism, known as a “garnishment,” is an automatic across-the-board reduction in discretionary spending that occurs if Congress fails to meet its deficit-reduction goals. Some of us jokingly called it Gram Rudman Hollings' “Amazing Slice, Dice, Automatic Spending Cutting Machine” (think Veg-O-Matic). But it wasn't a joke.
Some believe that this law was the first to impose binding constraints on the federal budget. The Supreme Court ended that dream in a 1986 case. Bauscher vs. Shinar The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it transferred certain executive powers to the Comptroller General, a quasi-official of Congress. Congress attempted to reinstate the law in a more acceptable form in 1987, but it failed to accomplish the cost-cutting task Congress intended.
When Gramm Rudman Hollings passed the board in the late 1980s, Congress came up with a new gimmick called PAYGO (“pay-as-you-go”). However, it was not a brilliant result either. This was originally specified in the Budget Implementation Act of 1990. The concept was very simple: new spending or tax changes should not increase the debt. Instead, new proposals must be “budget neutral” or offset by savings derived from existing funding.
This requirement was incorporated into both federal law and House and Senate rules. As Congress went from budget surpluses in the late 1990s to deficits in the early 2000s, keeping score became as difficult as playing the game. By 2002, the last year the original PAYGO law was in effect, Congress had a $377.6 billion deficit that continued to get worse. PAYGO was adopted as a House rule from 2007 to 2010, but became problematic when Congress faced demands for tax cuts.
Even for budget-savvy people, navigating the rocky path of PAYGO and its many iterations and exemptions can be difficult. Well-laid plans often fail. And Congressional budgeting is causing major problems.
What good have all these budgetary gimmicks served over the years? If you look at the budget situation at the end of this 118th Congress, it's a mess. Congress has not adopted a budget resolution for this year, nor has it passed any of the 12 regular appropriations bills. We have a deficit of $1.83 trillion.
Over the years, Congress has steadily lost its grip on the fiscal purse strings of constitutional purse power. Gypsy Rose may smile as she watches the first branch shed its financial cloak. But lawmakers should be outraged, especially at threats by some in the incoming administration to strip Congress of the last fiscal planning leaf.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year veteran of Congressional staff, culminating in 1995 as Chief of Staff on the House Rules Committee. He is the author of Parliament and the People: Deliberative Democracy in Courts (2000) and Cultural Change (2000). Congress: From Fair Play to Power Play” (2018).
