An explanation of Baseline Budgeting - hopefully a Trump target for repeal

[Little-Acorn]

You've probably heard of "Baseline Budgeting", and how government big-spending addicts use it to automatically increase the amount the government spends... even without passing a budget for year after year.

And you may have wondered why politicians were so eager to call some of the recent spending super-increases, "stimulus" spending, when in fact they stimulated nothing but merely piled up trillions more in debt.

Here's a great explanation of some of the details.

And not even very long.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Blog: Congress, Baseline Budgeting, and Fraud

Congress, Baseline Budgeting, and Fraud

Alex Gimarc
October 19, 2012

Today's lesson is a short excursion into the dismal science and black art of congressional budgeting and why there was not a single stimulus, but multiple "stimuli" passed since 2007 -- which account for most of our yearly $1.4 trillion spending deficit.

In 1974, a Democrat-dominated Congress in the throes of Watergate passed the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Among other things, the act established the Congressional Budget Office and codified the notion of baseline budgeting. A budgetary baseline increases about 6% per year. Any expenditure less than that 6% yearly increase is portrayed as a budget cut by Democrats and their media lackeys.

One of the games played by Democrats under this law is the passage of stimulus bills. When a stimulus is passed, it adds immediately to the budget baseline for that year and then for every succeeding year. So the Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus passed in 2009 added $787 billion of new spending to the federal budget in 2009. It then went on to add $834 billion of new spending in 2010 ($787 billion times 1.06 for the 6% yearly increase); $884 billion in 2011; and finally $937 billion in 2012. Over the last four years, this totals $3,442 billion more than would have been budgeted through the normal process -- which is precisely why the Democrats wanted it passed as a stimulus.

Since Harry Reid's Democratic majority in the Senate has consistently refused to pass a budget for nearly three years, the continuing resolutions have simply maintained the yearly automatic 6% increase in spending, leading to the enormous budget deficits of the Obama years.

Interestingly enough, the 2009 Obama stimulus was not the first stimulus passed by the Reid- Pelosi congresses. They passed a $152 billion stimulus in 2007 when the democrats retook majorities in the House and the Senate. Another $146 billion stimulus passed in 2008. President Bush signed both of them. The 2007 stimulus added $1,060 billion and the 2008 stimulus added $823 billion of new spending through 2012.

Add the three totals together and you end up with $5,326 billion of new spending based simply on adding a new stimulus to the yearly budget baseline and never removing them. That $5,326 billion ($5.3 trillion) represents the entirety of the new deficit spending under the Obama administration which has not had one of their budgets passed since 2009.

So what do we learn from all of this? First is that the Democrats are bloody good at deception and fraud. Second is that when any congress-critter starts talking about an economic stimulus, we taxpayers ought to start looking for the tar and feathers. Third is that the budgetary process in Congress is badly broken and completely deceptive. Finally, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 must be repealed in its entirety and replaced with a budget process that mirrors what business and/or households use: one that holds a budgetary baseline at zero with no increase so that a real increase is properly flagged and a real decrease is properly identified. Anything else is a fraud upon the taxpayer and should be treated appropriately.[/

 

[usmbguest5318]

When a stimulus is passed, it adds immediately to the budget baseline for that year and then for every succeeding year. So the Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus passed in 2009 added $787 billion of new spending to the federal budget in 2009. It then went on to add $834 billion of new spending in 2010 ($787 billion times 1.06 for the 6% yearly increase); $884 billion in 2011; and finally $937 billion in 2012. Over the last four years, this totals $3,442 billion more than would have been budgeted through the normal process -- which is precisely why the Democrats wanted it passed as a stimulus.

the 2009 Obama stimulus was not the first stimulus passed by the Reid- Pelosi congresses. They passed a $152 billion stimulus in 2007 when the democrats retook majorities in the House and the Senate. Another $146 billion stimulus passed in 2008. President Bush signed both of them. The 2007 stimulus added $1,060 billion and the 2008 stimulus added $823 billion of new spending through 2012 Add the three totals together and you end up with $5,326 billion of new spending

I can't believe folks actually read this crap and think it's accurate. As is typical, the article's author has left out a salient and critical point and this thread's creator has failed to verify the accuracy of the article authors assertions. Alex Gimarc, at least as goes the article noted in the OP, is one of the many individuals who have have been given a loud voice by dint of the Internet's mere existence, but who do not deserve to be heard because they use that voice, along with the seeming (to novitiate, under informed, or under educated people) credibility of a blog, to (by accident or intentionally) materially misrepresent the nature of matters on which they write.

• The 2007 and 2008 amounts cannot, as the author claims, be attributed to the Democrats or Republicans. Bush didn't veto the budget bill. The federal budget is passed by Congress and the President must sign it. Approve or disapprove the spending provided for in the budget as you see fit, but assigning ownership to the legislative or executive branch is invalid as it is a shared thing.
• Baseline budgeting has been used by every administration (via OMB) and Congress (via CBO) since 1974.
• As for blaming baseline budgeting on Democrats, that too cannot legitimately be done because it was in 1985 that baseline budgeting was formally defined by Congress as part of the Gramm–Rudman act. That act essentially codified was was before merely accepted practice.
• The baseline budget is a projection. It is not the actual budget. It does not define sums that are added to or removed from the federal budget.
  • "Twice a year—generally in January and August—CBO prepares baseline projections of federal revenues, outlays, and the surplus or deficit. Those projections are designed to show what would happen if current budgetary policies were continued as is—that is, they serve as a benchmark for assessing possible changes in policy. They are not forecasts of actual budget outcomes, since the Congress will undoubtedly enact legislation that will change revenues and outlays. Similarly, they are not intended to represent the appropriate or desirable levels of federal taxes and spending."
    
    Source: Statement of Paul N. Van de Water Assistant Director for Budget Analysis Congressional Budget Office on Budget Projections and Baselines
• MOST IMPORTANTLY -- The baseline budget is one of the tools used in assessing the potential spending impacts of spending legislative, societal, and policy changes. Those changes may be evaluated in the abstract or holistically. Specifically, the baseline budget is used as the point of comparison when evaluating the financial impact change can be expected to have on nature and extent of resources the federal government must expend to achieve its objectives.
• Sums added to the baseline budget do not, as a foregone conclusion become sums added to the final budget.

The only document needed to understand, as a layman who doesn't have to participate in the budget development and analysis process, is Van de Water's report to Congress. After reading it -- it's short, concise, comprehensive and easy to read and understand -- one will see that while Alex Gimarc may understand something about baseline budgeting, the federal appropriations process, and how the federal government uses the baseline budgets, he clearly doesn't understand enough about them.

The key assumption Gimrac makes and carries through his essay is that the sums projected in the baseline budget automatically and necessarily become appropriations of money that will be spent. That is just flat out incorrect. I don't know Gimrac and I don't generally read his essays, so I cannot say whether in writing the essay he aimed deliberately to misrepresent the truth or whether he's just generally perfunctory in conducting his research for the articles he writes. I can say that for some reason, he did not perform the due diligence he should have before writing the article.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd prefer zero based budgeting.