Yes, the deficit increased dramatically during Reagan’s administration; much less so during the Carter administration. But before you give Reagan an F on that or Carter an A, consider why it happened. Carter, with a willing Congress, raided the defense budget to fund social programs and Reagan inherited a decimated, tattered, and battered military structure. As Reagan ran on a ‘peace through strength’ platform, he rebuilt the military and most of his deficits can be placed in that build up. To get what he wanted there, he had to compromise with Congress on what it wanted. As long as they got what they wanted, he could have anything for the military he asked for. In our previous discussions on this thread, some of us considered whether we got our money's worth for that.
I remember President Reagan discussing the budget in a press conference saying that he cannot spend a dime that has not been authorized by Congress for him to spend. He was right. And that is why any President can be blamed for not leading in the budget process, but no President can be blamed for the budget that Congress passes. Can he veto the budget? Yes he can, but to what purpose? The government must have money to function. Unless both he and Congress start out in agreement, no budget is possible without compromise. He can also veto any of the various appropriations bills that authorizes the funds to be spent. When he does, however, that part of government simply shuts down and cannot function at all. Few Presidents are willing to inflict the kinds of pain that could inflict on the innocent.
Given the requirement of the Congress to write and pass the budget, it still remains to be seen whether the Constitution allows the President to have a line item veto. I think it would be far more practical to make it illegal for government to bundle different kinds of expenditures into a single bill. That way, if somebody wants a bridge to nowhere, members of Congress would have to vote straight up or straight down on that one single thing. That would provide a transparency in the process that would be refreshing and self-reforming and the President could veto that if he wanted to without having to veto a lot of good stuff included in the same bill.
The President does submit his proposed budget to Congress as he is the chief executive of all government agencies and their requests for funding go to him. Included in those requests are what he would like to accomplish through those agencies.
As often as not, Congress declares the President’s proposed budget dead on arrival and does their own thing though of course they will include funding for all those government agencies. More often than not Congress will include more in the budget for more things than the President requests. That has been true every year in the GWB administration. I believe it was not always true in the Clinton administration but can't say that for sure.
Quote:The Federal Budget
The federal budget process is similar to the regular legislative process, but it is also different in some very important ways. First, because the Constitution requires that any bill raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, the House has traditionally taken the lead in the budget process.
Another distinctive feature of the budget process is that the President's role is more formalized and, therefore, significant. The Congress, by statute, has required the President to submit a budget to the Congress each year. By doing so, the President establishes the starting point and the framework of the annual budget debate.
The final significant difference between the budget process and the normal legislative process is that there are three distinct stages of federal budget making. First, the Congress passes a Budget which provides the framework for overall federal government taxation and spending for the upcoming year. Then, before any money can be officially appropriated or set aside for a given program or purpose, that program or purpose must be authorized. When a federal program is "authorized" it is legally established, extended or modified. At the same time, procedures for implementing the program and spending money on it are outlined, usually in detail. According to House and Senate rules, only after a program is authorized can money be appropriated for use on that program. The amount of money authorized for a program is generally less than the actual amount appropriated for it.
http://www.thisnation.com/budget.html
Quote:What is a Continuing Resolution?
The national government's budget calendar runs from October 1st through September 30th of each year. Each federal department, agency and program is authorized to spend congressionally specified amounts of money. That money cannot be spent, however, unless it is explicitly appropriated for a given purpose. For example, an agency might be authorized to spend $2 billion on a program, but it does not actually have that money to spend until it is appropriated for that program.
Each year, the Congress must pass and the President must sign 13 separate appropriations bills by October 1st to fund all of the national government's departments, agencies and programs for the following year. If the Congress and President fail to pass all of the appropriations bills, there will be some agencies and programs that do not have the money appropriated to them that they are authorized to spend. In other words, there will be no money to spend on some legally established programs and national government functions.
In most instances, the Congress and the President will agree to a Continuing Resolution which temporarily funds the programs and agencies for which appropriations bills have not been passed. A Continuing Resolution (CR) must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
Generally, a CR funds agencies or programs for a month or two at the same funding level as the previous year. The main purpose of a CR is to keep the government running long enough for the Congress and President to work out an agreement on all 13 appropriations bills. Currently (on November 8, 1999), the national government is functioning under a Continuing Resolution while the President and Congress work out their differences on the remaining appropriations bills.
While the President and the Congress almost always agree to Continuing Resolutions to keep the government "open," a breakdown in budget negotiations between President Clinton and the Republican Congress in 1995 led to a temporary government "shutdown." Having failed to agree on a new Continuing Resolution after the previous one had expired and having failed to agree on a number of key appropriations bills, several departments and agencies were left with no money to spend. For a short period of time, some parts of the national government did not function.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/003.html
