In what looks like an attempt to out-fiscal-hawk President Obama, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have introduced an amendment that would impose strict limits on discretionary spending for the next three years. The amendment sets limits far lower than Obama's already low budget proposal, and it even includes a cap on defense discretionary spending, something the President's proposal does not do. Such caps would result in drastic cuts to many vital economic safety net programs and public protection agencies, negatively impacting the lives of millions of Americans. And while the two senators claim that the amendment will reduce the deficit, in reality, because discretionary spending is so little of the federal budget, the amendment's deficit-reducing effects will be minimal.

Enacting these caps would be the height of irresponsibility. Placing limits on discretionary spending locks in spending levels prior to knowing our nation's needs in the coming few years, which will leave us flat-footed and unable to respond to unforeseen challenges. Without thorough debate about whether these programs are protecting the well-being of the men, women, and children they serve, Congress will be ignoring its responsibility to meet the needs of the nation. A responsible budget is one that has the flexibility to fully fund the nation's priorities while maintaining sustainable levels of debt.

There are many reasons why the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is an irresponsible move that will bring harm to our nation:

• Cuts to food safety programs will result in even more sickness and death caused by contaminants in the nation's food supply.
• Cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) will restrict access to vital nutritional assistance that so many of our friends and neighbors need in these harsh economic times.
• Cuts in the Treasury Department's budget will allow more tax cheats to break the law and escape paying their fair share of taxes.
• Cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will hinder the nation's ability to prepare for hurricanes, blizzards, and climate change.

The Sessions-McCaskill amendment could force all of these things and more to happen, without thorough debate in Congress, simply because of arbitrary caps enacted years earlier. Even worse, the caps cannot be adjusted except by supermajority votes in both houses.

Long-term fiscal imbalances are a threat to the economy and should be addressed; however, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment does nothing to reverse the trend toward unsustainable national debt. And, in the short-term, reducing the federal budget deficit will stifle the emerging economic recovery while punching holes through the already frayed safety net.

Contact you senators using this form. Tell them that the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is bad for the nation and that we need a budget that responds to the needs of all Americans. Tell them to vote no on S.Amdt. 3453.

For more information, check out the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has an excellent rundown on just how bad this amendment is.

Image by Flickr user talkradionews used under a Creative Commons license.

You can always tell when the appropriations season is approaching because, somehow, earmarks, the shadowiest part of the appropriations process, always find a way of sneaking back into the political discourse. True to form, as we wait for Congress' budget resolution, today saw both the Democrats and Republicans announcing their own earmark reform plans. The House Democrats, through Congressman David Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, announced that they would be forbidding earmarks to for-profit organizations. At the same time, House Republican Leader John Boehner announced that his caucus was considering an outright ban on earmarks from House Republicans.

Both actions seem like an overreaction. While there was indeed earmark abuse, all for-profit entities were not abusing them, and the House Democrats' actions seem to be punishing those who were following the rules. Also, as a recent New York Times article on the Congressional Black Caucus Foundations suggested, not all non-profits are perfect angels. And banning all earmarks completely won't get rid of corruption or influence-peddling; the most famous recent such scandal, involving Jack Abramoff, wasn't about earmarks.

We at OMB Watch don't take a strong stance either way on earmarks, so we're not going to endorse either party's proposal. What we care about is transparency. As long as everything is transparent and above-board, we're okay with it. But right now, the earmark process could be a lot more transparent.

The problem is that it can be difficult to tell who requests which earmark. In 2009, Congress mandated that Members disclose their earmark requests online. This should have solved the transparency problem, but instead of providing the data in one place, the new rule left it up to each Member to post their earmarks on their individual websites. This meant that there were now 535 different websites listing earmark requests.

To help fix this new problem, Obey's announcement banning earmarks for for-profits also included a promise to provide a "one-stop" link to all Members' earmark requests. While it's not clear what how this promise will be executed (one page with every Member's earmark requests, or one page with links to each Member's website which lists their requests?), we're hopeful it's similar to the principal behind a petition OMB Watch just signed onto. The petition calls on Congress and the Obama administration to make public all earmark information, in one place, in a data-readable format. This information, the "who, what, when, where" of every earmark, could be used by everyone from journalists to advocates to ordinary citizens to actually make the earmark process transparent. It's a great idea, and getting support for the petition is important. Even if Obey releases all earmark information in one place, we still need the Senate data, since Obay's power is only over the House appropriations bills. So go sign the petition, and help bring transparency to the earmark process.

Image by Flickr user johnmuk used under a Creative Commons license.

I wanted to highlight one other thing from ProPublica's article on the "two-time loser" list, a nugget which I think was buried in the article. According to earlier OMB guidance, the main recourse agency officials have to punish repeat offenders is the revocation of federal funding, and we haven't heard whether agencies have used this stick yet. But ProPublica quotes OMB spokesman Tom Gavin as saying that, thus far, one, and only one, organization has suffered this fate. Want to guess which greedy, no-good corporation is flaunting the will of Congress, and which is being singled out as a rule-breaker? Maybe Xe? Wal-Mart? ENRON!?!

Nope, it's those money-grubbing child hunger advocates, Share Our Strength. While I applaud the federal government for cold-heartedly applying regulations, I'm not sure if a non-profit aimed at helping those who literally can't help themselves is really the best group to make an example of. Especially when it sounds like they're just as confused about how to report as thousands of other recipients. Regardless, Share Our Strength now has about $90,000 fewer dollars to help poor kids eat nutritional meals.

I know everyone's been distracted lately with health care, the Olympics, and the last season of Lost, but the budget process has been churning away silently these past few months. While we await Congress' budget resolution on April 15, the Congressional Budget Office decided to remind us all that the process is still moving ahead by releasing an analysis of the President's budget, one which is significantly less rosy than the President's estimate.

Granted, this is a somewhat ridiculous exercise, since Congress will likely ignore the President's budget, but it at least gives us a starting place. In any case, according to the CBO, Obama's budget proposal will add approximately $9.8 trillion to the nation's debt over the next ten years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration's own estimates. Almost all of this 14 percent difference comes in the out years, 2016-2020; in fact, the CBO's analysis is pretty close to the administration's over the next several years. For FY 2011, the upcoming budget year, the CBO estimates Obama's proposals would create a $1.341 trillion deficit, which is only a few percentage points higher than Obama's estimates.

Hit up the CBO report for all the fun, and, to save you the Googling, here's the President's budget from last month.