-
Pay-go…pay as you go, etc. … putting aside what it means to “pay” for something, it seems that this “rule” is spoken of alot but frequently ignored. When does it apply and when doesn’t it?
-
Fast-tracking the process… when can a simple piece of legislation be moved thru the process without lots of hearings and lots of amendments?
-
With regard to spending that is 3-5 years out… how difficult would it be to be cancelled?
The term I believe you’re looking for is PAYGO and the Wikipedia article is a good start as I’m sure others will chime in with more info later on.
You can fast track things usually when the public demands it. If there is a lot of public opinion to get it done, then it gets fast tracked. But the passing of bills usually involves a lot of compromise, as everyone wants something for themselves.
And since a lot of bills do not involve every state, you have to give to get. So if Wyoming isn’t going to benefit from a piece of legislation there is no incentive for that Representative or Senator to speed up. Unless you put something in that bill for his state or you make a “bad deal” whereas he votes for this now and another state’s Senator or Rep will vote for something Wyoming would want later on.
It’s not a rule; it’s a principle. It can be ignored at will.
When the leaders of the House and Senate decide the bill should be fast tracked, and the opposition goes along with them. Usually these involve emergency bills where time is essential – something like relief for the Katrina victims.
In general or in particular? In general, Congress can pass a law restricting spending in the annual budget.
There have been a couple different versions of PAYGO, but in general its an actual piece of legislation, and can’t be ignored unless its repealed. From 1990-2002 it was a law. After 2002 the law expired and there were a couple of relatively ineffective “PAYGO rules”, and in 2010 a new PAYGO statute was passed.
PAYGO refers to limitations on proposing increases in “direct” or “mandatory” spending, or proposing decreases in revenue. Under PAYGO rules, each of those proposals have to be paid for.
What is direct spending? Direct spending is not discretionary spending. Say what? Discretionary spending is appropriations in which the Congress specifically allocates a certain amount of funding that may be drawn from the treasury for a specific purpose, often for a limited amount of time. For example, the cost of running government (paying salaries, buying equipment, research projects, etc) are discretionary. Discretionary spending is all done through annual appropriations bills.
Direct spending is pretty much synonymous with entitlements. Once a program is established, it creates a lasting obligation for the government to pay for it. Congress does not need to act further to make money available to those purposes. For example, Congress does not need to pass a law each year to make Social Security funds available to retirees.
Why does PAYGO refer to direct spending and not to discretionary? For two main reasons. Direct spending creates a lasting obligation on the government that is not subject to annual review by Congress. Also, Congress usually passes a budget resolution each year that sets up procedures that set limits on how much discretionary funds may be approved in a given year.
There are two ways: one, that there is a general feeling among legislators that something is non-controversial and may be quickly moved. Two, that various rules and laws require that specific items be subject to limited debate and amendment. Some of these laws and rules include: the Budget Act limits debate on the annual budget resolution; various trade laws had given the President Fast Track negotiating authority for trade agreements; there is a procedure by which Congress can vote to strike down regulations, but only within a limited amount of time after a regulation is signed; and various others.
Oh, and it is considerably easier in the House to limit debate and amendments. All it takes is a majority to approve a rule for debate that does that. In the Senate, it takes at least 3/5ths of the membership to agree to limit debate and amendments, and often times it requires unanimity.
If it is direct spending, it is difficult to cancel. The law needs to be changed.
If it is discretionary spending, the question is irrelevant. Discretionary spending is done year-by-year, and it no more makes sense to cancel a discretionary project 3-5 years out than it does to cancel my purchase of a luxury dream home in 20 years. Just like I am not obligated to buy this fantasy dream home at some point in the future, the government is not obligated to use discretionary funds for some future project, hence the term discretionary.