Why do you think it matters whether war spending is in the budget resolution or not?
Then why does the part I already quoted refer to “The amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title” and this:
Hit the wrong button, more to follow
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012 makes large non-specific authorizations and appropriations, but the authorization act, above, makes specific authorizations and appropriations.
It didn’t say there were any. It was from January 2011.
I should have said “allocate” instead of “pre-authorize”; my mistake.
It matters because Democrats made such a big stink about the war spending not being in the budget, even though it provides more flexibility and creates more awareness that way. It was the awareness that they really didn’t like because people were actually paying attention to what they were doing and saying. They couldn’t do what they wanted because of all the attention. Now the Democrats are having their cake and eating it too. They didn’t actually put the spending in the budget, but they’ve convinced people they have, so a lot of attention has been diverted from the real proceedings.
I’m not saying the information can’t be found easily, I’m saying that not many people are looking for the information now that they believe the fake problem has been “fixed.” It has caused people to say what what created the original question:
Bush kept them off the budget for good reasons, and Obama only pretends they’re in the budget to keep the flexibility and minimize awareness.
Where did you learn this? Because it is totally incorrect. Authorizations do not direct appropriations to specific levels. Authorizations and appropriations are different things, and as the GAO fiscal lawyers will readily tell you, appropriaitons are what matters. The tables for how appropriated funds are intended to be used are included in the report that accompanies appropriations acts: go back to my link for the PDF 2012 appropriations act and just scroll down and you’ll see the tables and line items. The authorization act contains tables in the bill, but those tables cannot direct appropriations acts.
The budget resolution doesn’t allocate funds either. From your link to the Introduction to the Federal Budget:
Like I’ve told you many times, all the budget resolution does for the appropriations process is establish the spending cap known as the 302(a).
You are still failing to recognize the different ways the word budget is used. The main stink was that Bush wasn’t putting the funds in the budget request, not that Congress didn’t put it in the budget resolution. When Congress – NOT just Democrats – got fed up, John McCain offered this amendment in 2006:
Note that the McCain amendment didn’t require war funding to be in a budget resolution, it required war funding to be requested in the president’s annual budget request. Bush made a half-assed effort to comply, Obama’s budgets from fiscal year 2010 on are in full compliance with the McCain amendment.
You keep saying this but it doesn’t make any sense. There is total awareness of how much is being spent each year on the war, I showed you how to look that up. There is no flexibility, the war spending is presented in the exact same way that regular funding requests are.
I’m going to get off this merry go round now. If you have questions, I’m happy to answer them, but I’ve grown tired of correcting assertions of fact that are just objectively wrong.
I learned it by reading the two acts. I think you’d better go tell Congress they’re doing it wrong. There are over 100 pages of specific authorizations in the authorization bill and only large totals in the appropriations bill. I see what you’re saying about the difference between authorizing appropriations and appropriations but it really has nothing to do with what is and isn’t “the budget.”
I just don’t know what else to say to someone who offers proof that the budget resolution establishes spending caps through allocations as proof that the budget resolution doesn’t allocate money. I also, cannot understand why you equate attention, focus, and awareness with availability. I never said the information isn’t freely available; I said that funding the war separately draws more attention to the war funding than including it with everything else. I’m saying that the real complaint from Democrats, and apparently McCain, is about the extra attention, not what is or isn’t in a proposal that Congress has absolutely no obligation to even pretend to follow.
I have many years of experience with Federal budgeting and fiscal law. Congress is doing it right, you just don’t understand what they are doing. I’m doing my best to actually explain it to you, in a non-political way, but if you’re going to maintain that authorizations provide specific direction for the use of appropriations because you looked at two bills (among several other factual mistakes), well, I don’t know how to correct that. But I can tell you that every financial manager and fiscal lawyer in the U.S. Government will tell you that your assertions on the relationship between budget resolutions, authorizations, and appropriations is just totally wrong.
The difference between authorizing appropriations and appropriations is completely irrelevant to any point I’m trying to make; I don’t have a clue why you think they are so relevant, or even how you managed to deflect so far away from what I was trying to say. I got some terms messed up but that part has nothing to do with whether war spending is in the President’s proposal or the congressional resolution.
Let’s forget for a moment about whether a proposal or resolution holds more sway, if 302(a) allocations are allocations, or if people will pay more attention to war spending if it’s done separately or with a thousand other things. Why is it so important to attempt to lock in war spending seven months before the fiscal year even starts? What is the advantage?
I don’t understand the question. What do you mean “locked in?”
Why is it so important to list detailed war spending in the, apparently all-powerful, President’s budget proposal, seven months before the fiscal year even starts? What is wrong with addressing the issue on a more as-needed basis? Why is addressing it on an as-needed basis considered less transparent than including it with everything else when, as you keep saying, the information is available either way?
I’m not going to state my own opinions, but just as a factual matter; there were two main arguments against the Bush practice of submitting follow-on budget requests for war costs.
First, the fact that everyone knew that the annual budget request simply didn’t include $150-$200 billion in spending, leading to the perception that the annual budget request was simply unrealistic. Some liberals accused Bush of hiding the spending, others on both the right and left (including McCain) said that the use of supplementals avoided the question of how to pay for the war through tax hikes, more borrowing, or spending cuts.
Second, there was concern that while Congress generally has seven (or more) months to review annual appropriation requests from agencies before they are finally enacted, the time for scrutiny of late-arriving supplemental requests was far shorter. Like, perhaps a couple of months before they had to be passed into law. Add to this the perception that the supplemental requests were being abused to include non-war funding, and it’s fair to say that Congress wanted more time to examine the proposals in detail. To cite one egregious example, the 2007 Bush supplemental request for the war included a request for two Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. These are aircraft that had not even been tested at the time, and would not be fielded for many years (they only began training pilots in them late this year). Congress wanted time to examine the war related spending in more detail to insure it was actually war related.
I should note that in the 2012 appropriations bill I linked to (the see page 12 cite), Congress reduced the requested war spending from $157 billion to $118 billion. They must have been doing more oversight, I guess.
These are the complaints I’m mostly arguing against, and saying that the true motivation for these complaints was to draw less media/public attention to the negotiations and voting on war spending. It was well known that the requests were incomplete, but simply being incomplete doesn’t necessarily make them unrealistic, especially if it’s known that they’re incomplete. Using supplemental requests certainly does not hide the spending. The information is still freely available and reflected in the deficits, either way. Separate war spending negotiations draw more attention to war spending negotiations than spending negotiations that cover several areas of spending, including war, all at once, and if supplemental requests were occasionally necessary people may not pay so much attention, thinking it was all settled before. Again, I’m talking about media and public attention and perception, not accounting methods or information availability. The people making these complaints, certainly preferred the all at once method.
This seems flimsy to me. It’s not as if Bush’s position on these issues were any kind of mystery. It sounds like more of the same, with some Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush.
The second set of complaints you listed appear to have some merit, to me. they’re not really related to what I was talking about, either.