Irresponsibility: Alive and Well At the Highest Levels of Government
August 26, 2008

In case you missed it: a few months ago, OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, issued a ruling that Agency heads would not be required to generate a substantive and rigorously detailed FY2010 budget. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041108cdam1.htm.  With out of control, federal spending and our national debt at an all time high, you would think that now is the right time for government to confront the issue. 

You would also expect OMB to be the strict disciplinarians, pushing the President’s goal of fiscal responsibility.  But think again.  OMB is actually a significant part of the problem.  The decision to forego the necessary budget discipline and dumb down the President’s 2010 budget submission to Congress is, in reality, a decision to once again delay action, and hope someone else will exert the courage and leadership that is required for fiscal discipline. 

Let me give you some background: at a President’s Management Council Meeting several months ago, while I was still Administrator of GSA, Robert Shea and Clay Johnson trotted out this absurd plan to the agency leaders who had gathered during one of the monthly lunch sessions.  I was aghast.  As a fierce, fiscal conservative, I spoke out, quite vehemently, against this irresponsible idea.  I thought then, and think still, that federal agencies need the discipline of a rigorous budget cycle.  All federal programs need to be reviewed; tough decisions need to be made, and trade-offs weighed.   

After reading the OMB memo, I spoke with GSA’s CFO and Budget Manager and encouraged them to continue to move forward with GSA’s plans of submitting a rigorously detailed budget. As an agency responsible for $550 Billion in taxpayer assets, I believed that all federal agencies had an obligation to meet a higher standard of budgetary accountability.  Federal employees need to know that federal spending will be reviewed every year, and non-performing programs are going to get trimmed or chopped. 

The truly ironic aspect of OMB’S decision is that Clay Johnson has recently spoken out about the future direction of the President Bush’s Management Agenda.  But in deciding not to produce a rigorously detailed budget, OMB is, in effect, failing to support many of the good ideas throughout the government that are showing some progress. A budget is perhaps the clearest indication of an Administration’s priorities because it is truly an example of “deeds not words.”  Election year, or no election year, our nation’s budget reflects our national priorities and an Administration’s best judgments for the future.   Generating the Budget is not an easy process, but the American taxpayer depends on each agency’s best efforts to get it done.

OMB doesn’t seem to think so.   Perhaps they thought that submitting a budget was just too hard, or too much work, or better to let the next Administration sort things out.  I find OMB’s decision irresponsible, for it abdicated responsibility.   Unless OMB moves quickly to reconsider, in January 2009, the new President and his team will have approximately ten days to review, approve and present to Congress a comprehensive FY2010 budget. With so little time, and under great pressure to produce a trillion plus dollar budget, mistakes and poor decisions are likely. 

There is still time remaining in this fiscal year for OMB to get its act together.  As an American taxpayer, I pray, and so should you, that OMB will do so.   I urge career government employees, who are in positions of leadership in CFO and budget offices throughout the federal government, to step up to the plate and take a solid swing at generating a rigorous, detailed budget of your agency’s priorities.  Do not leave your agency’s important and often life-essential initiatives to the guillotine of political chance.

 All the rhetoric in the world cannot advance an initiative, unless there is the requisite funding to ensure the initiative’s success.  Furthermore, in a now familiar “new broom sweeps clean” scenario, which frequently happens with Administration turnovers, detailed explanations, of why a particular priority has been funded, are the only way to ensure that important agency initiatives can have at least a glimmer of hope of survival.

OMB will submit a placeholder, “baseline” budget that did not pass through the rigorous review process, which will not offer the new Administration much help, to determine the funding and priorities that will ultimately guide the lives of 340 Million Americans.  Most agencies, following the guidance set out by OMB will submit placeholders which could cause lots of problems. 

I fear OMB’s decision to deny a new Administration a leg up on the process reeks of petulance and pique.  As the old Chinese proverb advises, it is never too late to turn back on a wrong road.  I urge budget officials throughout the government to make a difference and to remember that the time to act is NOW.