The Consequences of Budget Reform for Congressional-Presidential Relations

Abstract

The struggle between Congress and the president over spending and taxing was altered significantly by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the impact of these reforms on congressional-presidential budgeting. The analysis answers two questions: What are the major budgetary reforms that have influenced congressional-presidential relations, and what have been the consequences of these changes? The article concludes that the budget reforms have strengthened the congressional role vis-à-vis the president's role in the budget-making process. Macro-budgetary and macro economic trade-offs between Congress and the president are highlighted. In sum, the reforms have made budgeting between the president and Congress more difficult. They have increased the number of budgetary participants, made the budget process more open, forced the president to work more closely with Congress, and allowed Congress gradually to tighten control over executive spending discretion.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

See also James A. Thurber , “Assessing the Congressional Budget Process under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the 1974 Budget Act” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1986).

2. See John W. Ellwood and James A. Thurber , “The New Congressional Budget Process: The Hows and Whys of House-Senate Differences,” in Congress Reconsidered, ed. L. C. Dodd and B. Oppenheimer (New York: Praeger, 1977), pp. 163-192.

3. See Allen Schick , Reconciliation and the Congressional Budget Process (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1981).

4. See James P. Pfiffner , The President, the Budget, and Congress: Impoundment and the 1974 Budget Act (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979).

5. Dale Tate , “Reconciliation Breeds Tumult as Committees Tackle Cuts: Revolutionary Budget Tool,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 23 May 1981, pp. 887-891.

6. See Elizabeth Wehr , “Congress Enacts Far-Reaching Budget Measure,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 14 Dec. 1985, pp. 2604-2611.

Elizabeth Wehr , “Court Strikes Down Core of Gramm-Rudman,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 12 July 1986, pp. 1559-1563.

8. See Elizabeth Wehr , “Gramm-Rudman: Domenici Has His Doubts,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 19 Sept. 1987, pp. 2234-2235.

Kenneth A. Shepsle , “The Congressional Budget Process: Diagnosis, Prescription, Prognosis,” in Congressional Budgeting: Politics, Process, and Power, ed. W. T. Wander , F. T. Hebert , and G. W. Copeland (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).

10.

10. Thurber , “Congressional Budget Reform.”

11.

11. Lance T. LeLoup , Budgetary Politics: Dollars, Deficits, Decisions (Brunswick, OH: King's Court Communications, 1977), p. 126.

12.

idem , “Budgeting as an Administrative Process,” in Perspectives on Budgeting (Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration, 1980).

13.

See also Louis Fisher , “Impoundment: Here We Go Again,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Winter 1986, p. 72.

14.

14. Leroy N. Rieselbach , Congressional Reform (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1986), p. 100.

15.

For a summary of congressional reforms of the 1970s, see Rieselbach , Congressional Reform.

16.

16. Louis Fisher , “The Budget Act of 1974: Reflections after Ten Years” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1985).

17.

17. James Miller , “Miller Says Deficits Beget Spending,” A.E.I. Memorandum, Spring 1987, p. 8.

18.

18. For a further discussion of this, see James A. Thurber , Public Policy Making in America: The Role of Policy Subsystems (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, forthcoming).

19.

19. For recommended solutions to the crisis of the federal budget deficit, see Charles W. Dunn , “The Crisis of the Federal Budget Deficit” (White paper, Strom Thurmond Institute, Clemson University, May 1987).