My column on nationaljournal.com this week is a serious departure for me. Instead of commenting/explaining/screaming about what others are doing about the budget, I provided what I called the Collender Manifesto, my idea of how fedreal budget decisions should be made. Judging from the responses I've already received, there's plenty here for everyone to hate,. so I must be doing something right. All additional comments much appreciated.

Here's the column for what I hope will be your reading enjoyment.

BUDGET BATTLES 

The Collender Manifesto
By Stan Collender, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007

The events I've written about with increasing frequency, anger and sadness -- especially Katrina, Walter Reed, and "Blackwatergate" -- have made me realize that "the budget" is not the year-to-year issue on which I have focused much of my professional life.

The submission of the president's budget each year, the annual fight over appropriations and even the deficit are really just fiscal tinkertoys that keep us amused. They are the byproduct of something much larger rather than the underlying issue itself.

And the real issue is actually quite simple: We want the federal government to do more than we are willing to pay for it to do.

That makes the federal budget something other than the display of national priorities textbooks declare it to be. Indeed, just the opposite is true: Today's federal budget is more a picture of underfunded accommodations rather than full commitments to dealing with an issue or solving a problem.

That's why the government inevitably fails to do something we expect it to do or does it in a way that is far below acceptable standards.

For example, FEMA didn't plan properly for a devastating hurricane in Louisiana, and the results were truly devastating. The Food and Drug Administration didn't inspect food rigorously enough, and people and pets died or got sick. Passports weren't issued quickly enough, even though a new law required that more people needed them to go to more places. An Army hospital didn't have the resources to properly care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the wounded suffered greatly. And the Pentagon didn't have enough troops or equipment to properly conduct activities in Iraq, and Americans paid the price in many ways.

When these or other similar situations occur, we do the federal budget equivalent of following the directions on a shampoo bottle: Get angry, hold hearings or appoint a commission to find out what went wrong, and do it all over again. In other words: wash, rinse, repeat.

This explains why many of the budget strategies that have become so common don't work. For example, one of the staples of federal budget debates -- across-the-board cuts -- may get us through the year, but they actually make matters worse by leaving less to accomplish what we expect from the government.

Similarly, a spending freeze -- a perennial favorite budget strategy of conservatives -- is almost always a cruel alternative because it promises additional efficiencies when just the opposite usually results.

This is also why President Bush's promise to provide a smaller but more effective government was just a slogan that could not possibly succeed. The sound bite was based on an assumption that all existing government activities could be trimmed without their effectiveness and efficiency suffering. The results from the past nearly seven years proves that the strategy doesn't work.
So, at the risk of boring some, angering others and (hopefully) eliciting passionate responses from many more, here is the Collender Budget Manifesto.

First, whatever the government decides to do, be it fight a war, prevent or respond to a natural disaster or maintain a financial regulatory structure, it must make a commitment to doing it at the highest standard. Nothing less is acceptable.

Second, if the government is not willing to spend what it takes for a particular service or activity to be performed at the highest level, the most appropriate response is for the government not to take on that task at all.

Third, continuing to perform all of the tasks the government is currently doing would require an increase in taxes that is politically unacceptable. Therefore, the Collender Manifesto requires that the government cut back on its activities.

The federal government has always been much better at doing new things than eliminating old ones. The earliest example I'm aware of that illustrates this point dates back to more than half a century ago, when a commission appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower failed to come up with a list of programs to eliminate. I'm willing to bet that there have been similar efforts dating back to the earliest days of the United States.

Enacting the manifesto won't be easy because there is a lot here to anger nearly everyone. Fiscal conservatives probably won't like the idea that many federal activities would require more rather than less spending. They also may not like the concept that some federal agencies, like the IRS, would become more effective. They certainly won't want to think about the possibility of additional tax revenues being needed. Fiscal liberals may not take kindly to the notion that some federal activities have to be eliminated because we are unable or unwilling to devote the resources needed to do them properly.

And conservatives and liberals alike will hate the notion that some of their most-treasured federal activities would just go away rather than be funded at a lower level.

But everyone has to admit that the current federal budget and budget debate aren't meeting everyone's needs or making too many people happy. Shouldn't we at least start to change that by asking what it will take to enable the government to provide the services we expect?