Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, December 16, 1998 | |
Republicans May Muff Second Chance On Budget Director |
In a few weeks, Congressional Budget Office Director June O'Neill will return to academia, winding up a four-year term running the agency. Congressional Republicans generally consider it to have been very unsatisfactory. She has been widely criticized for not cleaning out the Democrats at CBO despite Republican control of both houses of Congress since 1994; for not being more supportive of Republican initiatives, such as a cut in the capital gains tax; and for poor economic forecasting. In Mrs. O'Neill's defense, Republican leaders are at least partially to blame for her failures. Although they knew this was one of the most important staff appointments they would make after taking control of Congress, they diddled and did not appoint her until February 1995. At this point, President Clinton had submitted his budget to Congress and the House and Senate were already deep into their 100-day sprint to pass the "Contract With America." This would have been a difficult enough position for anyone already well-versed in current budgetary initiatives. But it was doubly difficult for Mrs. O'Neill, who had been out of the loop for some years while teaching in New York. In short, Mrs. O'Neill essentially was dumped into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim. Under the circumstances, there was little she could do except maintain the status quo at the CBO until the pressure let up. Only this year did she finally begin to make some major staff changes. Thus it was the indecision of Republican leaders that ultimately determined CBO's course to a very large extent. Had they made up their minds more quickly and gotten a new director into the agency in November or December of 1994, before previous Director Robert Reischauer's term expired, that person would have had a much better chance of making the reforms that the leaders wanted. By delaying as they did, it was all but impossible to institute major changes in staff or methodology. The delay also hurt Republicans in another way. By failing to make a timely CBO appointment, they allowed Democrat Reischauer to continue to run the agency during a critical time period. In January 1995, Reischauer was before one congressional committee or another almost daily, denouncing Republican budgetary plans as misguided and unworkable. He also gave innumerable press interviews repeating these criticisms. At a minimum, Republicans should have asked Reischauer to leave on January 3, when his term expired, instead of allowing him to undermine their plans from within for another six weeks. Now it appears that Republican leaders are all set to make exactly the same mistake all over again. They have known since mid-year that Mrs. O'Neill would not be reappointed. Thus they have had plenty of time to choose a new CBO director and have him or her set to go on January 3, 1999. But as of this date, no action has been taken. Indeed, not one person has even been formally interviewed for the job. This means, in all likelihood, that no one will be available to replace Mrs. O'Neill when she goes, leaving the agency in the hands of people who were hired under Democrat directors and sharing their political and economic views. What this will mean for the Republican agenda next year it is too soon to say. At a minimum it means that the new director, whoever he is, will have a far more difficult time reforming the agency than if Republicans had made a more timely choice. At worst, Republicans could find themselves severely handicapped next year when critical analyses of issues like Social Security reform are forthcoming from CBO. Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, December 16, 1998. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |