Congress's dilemma: Budget goals versus political reality

Whoever coined the term “budget reconciliation,” in crafting the 1974 Budget Reform Act, deserves an ingenious award for a brilliant paradox that accurately depicts the current process in Congress. 

The paradox of budget reconciliation is that budgets are contentious, fluid and divisive moving targets, whereas "reconciliation" means coming together on a mutually agreeable, consensus outcome. The two terms collide when fiscal reality, which has chased the tail of all members’ worthy goals and projects catches up and forces them to limit their aspirations. 

In watching the current wrangling between the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and, yes, House Republicans and House Republicans, I couldn’t help but be reminded of David Stockman’s tenure as President Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985. As told in his 1986 memoir, “The Triumph of Politics: The Inside Story of the Reagan Revolution,” the parallels with present day budget battles are striking.  

The goals of Reagan and his Republican cohorts in Congress, and between President Trump and his allies on the Hill, are uncannily similar. Both presidents wanted to drastically reduce government spending, enact big tax cuts and increase defense spending — all while preserving benefits under Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs. 

The main difference is that Stockman attempted to implement what he called “My Grand Doctrine” by relying on Congress to enact those goals following the regular order of the 1974 budget process.  

Trump and his sidekick, Elon Musk, on the other hand, wanted to circumvent all those messy fights in Congress by unilaterally inflicting massive spending cuts across nearly all agencies in a blitzkrieg of shut-downs, layoffs and firings. If they thought of Congress at all it was in the hope that with both houses under Republican control they would meet with little resistance.  

The duo apparently did not consider they might encounter trouble in the third branch, the Judiciary, which is grappling with some 200 lawsuits filed to stop the Trump juggernaut. At this point, the Trump/Musk team is losing most of those preliminary challenges in the lower courts.  

In a wide-ranging interview with the media on April 30, Department of Government Efficiency architect Musk was asked whether he had accomplished all he had hoped to at that point. He replied, “I think we’ve been effective. Not as effective as I’d like.” He said his team had so far cut $160 billion in spending. He originally set out to slash $2 trillion in government spending, but that was soon revised downward to a goal of $1 trillion.  

Whether further cuts can be made, he said, depends on “how much pain is the Cabinet and Congress willing to take. ... It can be done, but it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.” He added, “there’s a lot of inertia in government.”  

Stockman ran up against the same walls in 1981 in trying to implement his “grand doctrine” of dismantling the social-welfare state — what he called “the Second Republic” — erected by President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930s and reinforced by President Johnson’s “Great Society” in the mid-1960s.

Congress continued to whittle away at Stockman’s budget plan until any savings remaining were miniscule. “The White House itself had surrendered to the political necessities of the welfare state early on,” Stockman wrote. Its “claim to be serious about cutting the budget had in fact become an institutional fantasy.” And therein lies the title to his book, “The Triumph of Politics.” Politics wins over idealistic grand plans to bring big government to heel. 

All this should be kept in mind as this week the House brings forward its budget reconciliation proposal — that “one big beautiful bill” the president has talked about.  

The much-sought golden age of prosperity through prudent fiscal management is a chimera. Deficits will continue to climb, government spending will continue to grow, and false savings will continue to be fabricated. The paradox of budgeting is that its shifting parameters will never be reconciled with utopian grand fixes. Entitlement benefits are where the real money is and where no Congress dares to go. 

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as House Rules Committee chief-of-staff in 1995. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000) and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).