This would be making a distinction between defense and nondefense spending. This gives you one big aggregate for all discretionary spending. That is how far back it takes us and how little definition it leaves to what we end up doing. We come up with three or four big numbers and that is the end of the budget. The gentleman is suggesting we could do something much more elaborate, but this would be the only statutory prerogative we would have which would mean that pretty soon we would probably not be doing any function allocations at all. It would not have any statutory basis. I am not saying they get great deference from the Committee on Appropriations today, but once we reduce the budget process to this, I doubt the Committee on the Budget would get any deference from the appropriators.
John Spratt: “This would be making a distinction between defense and nondefense spending. This gives you one big aggregate for all…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of budget process changes during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John Spratt
I think it is a bit irresponsible to at least articulate to the American people, to the Congress, why you think we need a new policy direction.
When President Obama was sworn into office at the beginning of this year, the economy was in deep contraction and jobs were being lost at a rate of 741,000 per month.
Shouldn't we stop creating new programs, now agencies, new commissions and new discretionary spending?
The moral of the story is, if the leaders of both parties don't want a commission to succeed, if the leaders of both parties aren't willing to put both parts of the budget, taxes and spending, on the table, the chances that it is going to…





