Money, money, money
Despite a deep and career-influencing interest in politics and public policy, I haven't written much about either of them on this blog. Outside of a fairly limited circle of friends whose opinions I trust and value, I don't talk about them, either. I do that on purpose. I've found that a lot of conversations about politics end up not being conversations at all; instead they're just recitations of beliefs and opinion. I find that kind of thing dreadfully dull.
I don't write about politics and policy on this blog because the readers who know me already know my opinions and they're all capable of conversing intelligently, so I'd rather just talk to them in person about current events. As far as people I don't know who read this blog, I think I'm right in assuming that y'all aren't too interested in my thoughts on the newest Medicare prescription drug benefit cost estimates.
So, now that I've said all that, I have to note that something happened this week that I can't not comment on; the president's budget was released. I sort of love the budget and appropriations process. It's definitely flawed, but it's fantastically fascinating. It's also something that I think most former and current Hill staffers take inordinate pride in understanding. From fairly simple things like the difference between the budget resolution and the appropriations bills to complex things like the spending mechanisms that make it appear as though we're spending less money, most of it doesn't make much sense until you've seen the process in action (and even then, some of it's just crazy).
Anyway, I felt like a big geek at the beginning of the week -- as soon as I read about the budget in the Washington Post, I started poking around the Department of Education and Health and Human Services websites to find out which programs had been gutted. I then heard from two friends who both left the Hill to pursue graduate degrees about the same time I did. One of them had participated in a heated classroom argument with a student who didn't understand the function of omnibus appropriations bills and the other admitted that she's started a lot of conversations this week with, "Did you know the president's budget would cut . . . ?" So, it turns out I'm less of a geek than I thought. I'm really just intent on not losing what meager knowledge about the process I gained in the last couple years.
The thing that's disheartening to me is not that the general public doesn't understand the budget process (that's why we have a representative democracy, right?). It's that they don't know that they don't understand it and they're willing, in many cases, to base their votes on it anyway. Many people will lobby relentlessly this spring to save a beloved federal program without realizing that their vote last fall forecast its demise. Of course the President cut education funding. Of course he cut Medicaid. Of course he did. That's what happens every year, but instead of thinking about the value of those things the government funds, we choose to believe the rhetoric that the government is bad and doesn't deserve to spend out money.
I'm not saying that sentiment doesn't sometimes have merit, but one of the most memorable aspects of my job was sorting through the correspondence my senator received describing the impact that federal programs have in the lives of individuals. It turns out that despite all its faults, the federal government frequently plays a positive role in our lives. Students are able to go to college, police departments are better able to respond to emergencies, life-saving and life-changing medical research is conducted, and so on. It's frustrating that we don't realize that until the funding's about to be cut off.
This spring we'll surely hear a lot about the financial strain that the No Child Left Behind Act has imposed on schools. We'll hear about the crises many states are experiencing in funding Medicaid. We'll also hear about issues I didn't work on. I think the important thing to remember during those fights is that the fact that individuals are willing to fight at all indicates that maybe the government's doing something good and powerful. And maybe, instead of looking for ways to scale back those efforts, we should try to find ways to do more and to do better.
I don't write about politics and policy on this blog because the readers who know me already know my opinions and they're all capable of conversing intelligently, so I'd rather just talk to them in person about current events. As far as people I don't know who read this blog, I think I'm right in assuming that y'all aren't too interested in my thoughts on the newest Medicare prescription drug benefit cost estimates.
So, now that I've said all that, I have to note that something happened this week that I can't not comment on; the president's budget was released. I sort of love the budget and appropriations process. It's definitely flawed, but it's fantastically fascinating. It's also something that I think most former and current Hill staffers take inordinate pride in understanding. From fairly simple things like the difference between the budget resolution and the appropriations bills to complex things like the spending mechanisms that make it appear as though we're spending less money, most of it doesn't make much sense until you've seen the process in action (and even then, some of it's just crazy).
Anyway, I felt like a big geek at the beginning of the week -- as soon as I read about the budget in the Washington Post, I started poking around the Department of Education and Health and Human Services websites to find out which programs had been gutted. I then heard from two friends who both left the Hill to pursue graduate degrees about the same time I did. One of them had participated in a heated classroom argument with a student who didn't understand the function of omnibus appropriations bills and the other admitted that she's started a lot of conversations this week with, "Did you know the president's budget would cut . . . ?" So, it turns out I'm less of a geek than I thought. I'm really just intent on not losing what meager knowledge about the process I gained in the last couple years.
The thing that's disheartening to me is not that the general public doesn't understand the budget process (that's why we have a representative democracy, right?). It's that they don't know that they don't understand it and they're willing, in many cases, to base their votes on it anyway. Many people will lobby relentlessly this spring to save a beloved federal program without realizing that their vote last fall forecast its demise. Of course the President cut education funding. Of course he cut Medicaid. Of course he did. That's what happens every year, but instead of thinking about the value of those things the government funds, we choose to believe the rhetoric that the government is bad and doesn't deserve to spend out money.
I'm not saying that sentiment doesn't sometimes have merit, but one of the most memorable aspects of my job was sorting through the correspondence my senator received describing the impact that federal programs have in the lives of individuals. It turns out that despite all its faults, the federal government frequently plays a positive role in our lives. Students are able to go to college, police departments are better able to respond to emergencies, life-saving and life-changing medical research is conducted, and so on. It's frustrating that we don't realize that until the funding's about to be cut off.
This spring we'll surely hear a lot about the financial strain that the No Child Left Behind Act has imposed on schools. We'll hear about the crises many states are experiencing in funding Medicaid. We'll also hear about issues I didn't work on. I think the important thing to remember during those fights is that the fact that individuals are willing to fight at all indicates that maybe the government's doing something good and powerful. And maybe, instead of looking for ways to scale back those efforts, we should try to find ways to do more and to do better.
| Permalink | E-mail this post 
