Executive Policymaking. Andrew Rudalevige. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: Andrew Rudalevige
Издательство: Ingram
Серия:
Жанр произведения: Экономика
Год издания: 0
isbn: 9780815737964
Скачать книгу
Partnership for Public Service, “From Decisions to Results: Building a More Effective Government Through a Transformed Office of Management and Budget,” October 2016, pp. 1–42, https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/from-decisions-to-results/.

      OMB AND THE BUDGET PROCESS

      OMB, the Presidency, and the Federal Budget

      JAMES P. PFIFFNER

      Since the creation of the executive budget in 1921, central control of executive branch spending has been at the core of presidential power, and the budget bureau has been the instrument of that power. From the Bureau of the Budget’s (BOB) focus on budget control in its early decades to the economic mobilization for World War II to its response to the 1960s government activism, BOB was at the center of budget control.

      After BOB’s reincarnation as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1970, it has played an increasingly important role in defending the president’s budget and policy priorities in Congress. Increased partisan polarization and the focus on deficits changed budgetary policymaking from a bottom-up process to top-down control, in which the politics of fiscal policy eclipsed the budget bureau’s impact on federal budget outcomes.

      For its first fifty years, when most of the federal budget comprised discretionary spending, BOB’s influence over the federal budget was at its zenith. But as deficit spending grew out of control and the national debt approached 80 percent of GDP, OMB’s impact on budget totals decreased. OMB could analyze the consequences of large entitlement programs but could not, by itself, force bipartisan agreement in Congress on a coherent fiscal policy.

      Nevertheless, OMB’s career professionals continued to be masters of the details of the programs and agencies of the executive branch. With OMB’s political leadership paying more attention to contentious issues affecting fiscal policies, budget examiners have had as much or more influence over executive branch agencies as had those of BOB.

      This chapter will present an overview of BOB’s first half-century and the establishment of the executive budget; it will then turn to its second half-century, with the transformation from bottom-up budgeting to imperative control from the top, driven by increasing deficits. Finally, it will analyze the trends that have led to an unsustainable fiscal future: the disintegration of the regular budgetary order, continuing resolutions and government shutdowns, and the rise of mandatory spending.

      THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS: PRESIDENTIAL CONTROL AND THE BUDGETARY PROCESS

      From its humble creation in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, BOB grew to become the major staff arm of the presidency, with control over executive branch budgeting. During most of this period, there was a broad political consensus that balancing the federal budget was a priority. The major exception was financing World War II, but President Eisenhower returned to the focus on budget balance. Despite Kennedy and Johnson’s Keynesian perspectives, the budget was balanced in fiscal year 1969. Whether it was the tight spending control of the 1920s and 1950s or the more expansive periods of the New Deal or the Great Society, BOB was central to presidential priorities.

      1920s: Creating the Executive Budget and Spending Restraint

      1930–1950: Depression, WWII, and Budget Expansion

      The growth of government activities during the New Deal made it obvious that the presidency needed more administrative capacity to coordinate and lead the executive branch. In 1937, the President’s Committee on Administrative Management (the Brownlow Committee) recommended the expansion of central executive resources, both personal and institutional. The committee declared, “The president needs help,” and argued that the budget bureau was the right staff agency to provide institutional support.

      1950s and 1960s: Establishing the “Regular Order” of the Budgetary Process