Responsive budgeting: The accommodation of federal budgeting to different programs and spending regimes

Before the 1930s, budget decisions for federal programs were made largely through a single budget process, the traditional appropriations process. Then, beginning with the New Deal, there was a multiplication of federal budget processes. Today there are at least four distinct budget processes covering (1) nondefense discretionary appropriations, (2) defense, (3) entitlement, and (4) credit programs. The empirical core of the dissertation is an examination of the four processes and their changes over time. In particular, the study focuses on the years 1965 to 1985 when spending on the different programs had a chance to both rise and fall.;The historical review of budgeting reveals that there are important differences between budgeting in periods of growth in spending and budgeting in periods of consolidation. "Budgeting for growth" is characterized by the strength of the executive branch departments, the White House staff, special task forces, and congressional authorizing committees; off-budget accounting for programs; strong support for increased spending from the public and interest groups; and long-term economic growth. In contrast, "budgeting for consolidation" is marked by the power of the Office of Management and Budget, president, Budget Committees, and congressional party leaders; on-budget accounting; minimal support for programs from the public and interest groups; and long-term economic weakness.;The analysis also examines the consequences of the existence of multiple budget processes: generalist selected officials have difficulty controlling certain kinds of programs, especially entitlement and credit programs; entitlement programs typically win more funding than other programs; and budgeters have problems coordinating the budgeting for the different types of programs. While recognizing these and other problems, the dissertation also points out that generalist elected officials have often managed to mold the institutions and procedures of budgeting to help them get the budget outcomes that they and the public want, which we generally believe is a good thing in this country.