WEBVTT 00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:28.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Hi, Roy! 00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:33.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Oh, you're on mute. 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:42.000 Roy Meyers: I just sent you an email asking if to let us, if you're going to let us into the room before too, so I guess that's the answer. 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:48.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Ah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, exactly. Um, usually I do 15 minutes, but I had to run around a little bit. 00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:50.000 Roy Meyers: No, I just wanted to… 00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:50.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Take care. 00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:54.000 Roy Meyers: Make sure my office look presentable. 00:00:53.000 --> 00:00:57.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, it looks great! I'm sorry to make you clean it. 00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:05.000 Roy Meyers: There's no problem, I, you know, as a retiree, I wear sneakers, I'm still allowed to do that today. No tie either, so… 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:04.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, yeah. 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:08.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): It's nice, but you still look presentable. 00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:11.000 Roy Meyers: How… yeah, how long was your commute last night? 00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:27.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): it was just that, like, for the… it was that I couldn't get an Uber out of the city. Like, I had someone come, and then they, like, they dropped me, and then I had someone else drop me, and then I finally got someone to come through, but I know for other people, it was also taking them a long time to travel, because they're… 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:18.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah. 00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:34.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): There aren't great places to, like, park or stop in the road because of all the ice still, and it's just… it was… we were all having to walk through the snow. It was not… 00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:42.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): It wasn't the most pleasant, uh, experience, so… yeah, we… I want to set it up so that next time. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:39.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah, yeah. 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:59.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): And, uh, Robert and I have already talked about it a little bit, like, we'll have it be in person if that's what we want to do, um, and we'll set it up to be clear from the invite and all that stuff, because the way we set it up, the invite just sends everybody to the Zoom link, so I was like, they're not going to know. 00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:03.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): They're not gonna realize that, you know, they could do this in person, so… 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:04.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah, yeah. 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:11.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): But I apologize for that, because that was… that was a mishap on my end. We just never… we've never done them hybrid before, so I just… I think I was just… 00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:11.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah. 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:15.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): you know, years of doing it this way, I just sort of, uh, was, uh… 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:17.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): On autopilot a little bit. 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:23.000 Roy Meyers: Well, I can say that when we tried to do hybrid teaching, it was ridiculous. You need a… 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:31.000 Roy Meyers: You need a really big screen to show the students in the room, the students who are off the room, and it just doesn't work. 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:28.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): You do. 00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:33.000 Roy Meyers: So… 00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:40.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, I don't like hybrid, personally. I prefer we just do either all in person or all virtual. It's just… it's just really hard to do. 00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:39.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah. 00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:41.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah. 00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:45.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): I'm just trying to check to make sure, uh… 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:50.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): I'm gonna let the people in the waiting room know that we're, you know, we'll start at 2. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): You looking forward to the conversation today? 00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:22.000 Roy Meyers: Sure. I'm actually… I mean, I haven't been teaching for a couple years, so I'm out of practice speaking, actually. It's kind of… it's kind of funny. 00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:27.000 Roy Meyers: Um, but yeah, I can read from my notes now, if you're just going to show slides, so… 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:30.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, yeah, exactly. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:30.000 Roy Meyers: That's good. Yeah. 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:34.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): It's a good reminder, let me get those all pulled up, I have them. 00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:38.000 Roy Meyers: I mean, it's good to let off steam after what's happened last year, too, so… 00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:46.000 Roy Meyers: Although this is a more long-standing problem, so… 00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:34.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): And I think I noted this when we were… 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:40.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): or Robert may have noted it, that we're… we are going to record the session. Is that all right with everybody, with you? 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:43.000 Roy Meyers: Sure. Sure. No, that's fine. 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:42.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Did you all talk about that before? 00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:46.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Okay. I'll check with everyone as well. 00:04:44.000 --> 00:04:49.000 Roy Meyers: And so, will you then post it to the web… NAPA webpage, then? 00:04:49.000 --> 00:04:53.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, yeah, we put it on our YouTube, and then we also put it on our website. 00:04:52.000 --> 00:04:56.000 Roy Meyers: Okay. They have a 97-year-old father. 00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:56.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, we said… 00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:04.000 Roy Meyers: Who, uh, has some dementia. Luckily, he's happy, but he has dementia, so, but he's always asking me, he asks me every 5 minutes, what chapter am I on? 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:02.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Right. 00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:09.000 Roy Meyers: So this, it'll be good to have a, uh, a recording so he can watch it. 00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:07.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Hmm. 00:05:09.000 --> 00:05:12.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): That's nice. Oh… 00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:13.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah. 00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:16.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): I'm glad he's happy, but I'm sorry that you're… you're going through that. That's difficult. 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:16.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah, yeah. 00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:19.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Hey, Robert. 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:24.000 Robert Shea: Hi, Jillian. 00:05:25.000 --> 00:05:27.000 Robert Shea: Can you hear me? 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:32.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yep, yep, we can hear you. Thanks so much for, um, helping us all figure everything out yesterday. 00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:36.000 Robert Shea: You're welcome. I… I… I knew… I knew you'd be grateful. 00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:35.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): And, um, yeah, we… we're good… we're good if we… 00:05:36.000 --> 00:05:48.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Uh, no, we can definitely… we can do it, uh, for February, that sounds good to us, to do it in person, or, you know, or we can do hybrid, but we'll chat about it, so, yeah. 00:05:36.000 --> 00:05:39.000 Roy Meyers: Is that a moose on your wall? 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:46.000 Robert Shea: Okay, you saw that, right? 00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:52.000 Robert Shea: almost, you know, a month in advance, Jillian. 00:05:51.000 --> 00:05:57.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yes, yes, we should be good. I just was on autopilot, frankly, because we've always done them virtually. 00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:54.000 Robert Shea: Did you, like… 00:05:55.000 --> 00:06:02.000 Robert Shea: No, I'm just… I'm just wanting you to give me credit for… this is the first that I've ever had anything scheduled a month in advance. 00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:09.000 Robert Shea: Um… the, uh… um… so thanks for that, we can talk about that later, but it's… 00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:06.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, true, now. 00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:13.000 Robert Shea: That's gonna be a great… I think a great event. 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:15.000 Robert Shea: Um… 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:15.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Hi, Philip! 00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:17.000 Philip Joyce: Hey, how are you? 00:06:17.000 --> 00:06:19.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Good, good. How's everybody doing? 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:21.000 Robert Shea: Great. 00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:23.000 Philip Joyce: Great. Hey, Robert. Hey, Roy. 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:25.000 Roy Meyers: Not a very believable background right now. 00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:29.000 Philip Joyce: Yeah, no kidding. No. 00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:27.000 Roy Meyers: You don't have the snowy version? 00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:28.000 Robert Shea: Yeah. 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:34.000 Philip Joyce: I still have yet to figure out why we're closed all week, but, you know… 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:36.000 Philip Joyce: But I'm from your… 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:36.000 Roy Meyers: I read that the steam broke down. 00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:39.000 Philip Joyce: But I'm from Erie, Pennsylvania, and so, you know… 00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:40.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah, right. 00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:44.000 Robert Shea: I'm from Houston, Texas, and it's just fine where I am, you know? 00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:50.000 Robert Shea: Um… the… I have had to use, uh… 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:55.000 Robert Shea: Crowbar and a metal shovel to clear my driveway, so… 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:56.000 Philip Joyce: Yeah, that's… 00:06:56.000 --> 00:06:59.000 Robert Shea: It is… that is concrete level stuff. 00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:01.000 Roy Meyers: Yeah. 00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:10.000 Philip Joyce: Well, we sold our house in April, and I'm now in an apartment, and let me just say, I was never happier to be in an apartment than the last week. 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:13.000 Robert Shea: I bet. Where are you living? Phil, where are you living? 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:14.000 Philip Joyce: Because none of that… Crystal… Crystal City… 00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:18.000 Robert Shea: Oh, that's where I drove yesterday. The first time I left my house was to drive from. 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:18.000 Philip Joyce: Yeah. 00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:23.000 Robert Shea: Uh, Delray, Alexandria to Crystal City, so… 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:25.000 Robert Shea: How do you like it? 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:32.000 Philip Joyce: Oh, it's fine. Um, you know, it's an adjustment after being in a house for 35 years, but, um… 00:07:33.000 --> 00:07:35.000 Philip Joyce: But, uh… 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:36.000 Robert Shea: Yeah, when we were… 00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:41.000 Robert Shea: renovating our kitchen, my wife and I moved to an Airbnb in an apartment building. 00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:44.000 Robert Shea: I've never felt hipper. 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:50.000 Philip Joyce: Right. Yeah, no kidding. Well, I've never felt older. 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:51.000 Robert Shea: Hipper, hipper, Bill, it's hipper! Yeah. 00:07:51.000 --> 00:07:54.000 Roy Meyers: That doesn't stop, unfortunately. 00:07:51.000 --> 00:07:59.000 Philip Joyce: I was telling my wife when I, you know, when I was at CBO, and we had these AABPA events twice a year. 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:07.000 Philip Joyce: We always had them at the Crystal City Marriott, and when we first got here, I said to my wife, I've never been above ground before. 00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:14.000 Philip Joyce: Because I would take the metro, and, you know, and I would go to the hotel, and then I'd take the metro back. 00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:18.000 Roy Meyers: Is there any sign of the HQ, too? 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:20.000 Philip Joyce: Oh yeah, for sure. 00:08:19.000 --> 00:08:21.000 Roy Meyers: Oh, yeah. 00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:32.000 Philip Joyce: Yeah, the, um… yeah, all you have to do is there's a tate across the street from where we are, and if you go there at 10.30 on any given day, it is filled with Amazon people having coffee. 00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:37.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Right. That's steep. 00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:39.000 Robert Shea: Um, can… so, can we hammer out how this is gonna go? 00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:49.000 Philip Joyce: Now, yeah, was… yeah, um, Steve and, uh, Roy, was… was Ed gonna say anything up front before turning it over to me? I'm trying to remember. 00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:41.000 Robert Shea: Um… 00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:57.000 Steve Redburn: No, I think you're leading off, Phil. And then handing it over to Roy, Roy hands it over to me, and I then hand it over to Ed for the last slide. 00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:52.000 Philip Joyce: Okay, alright. 00:08:57.000 --> 00:08:59.000 Philip Joyce: Gotcha. Okay. 00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:02.000 Robert Shea: So, I'll kick it off, and then hand it over to you, Phil. 00:08:59.000 --> 00:09:01.000 Steve Redburn: Bye. 00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:04.000 Philip Joyce: Great. 00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:04.000 Robert Shea: Great. 00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:06.000 Steve Redburn: Is that okay, Ed? 00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:08.000 Steve Redburn: Ed, you're on mute. 00:09:13.000 --> 00:09:17.000 ED DeSeve: Would you ask them to put their questions in the chat? 00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:19.000 Robert Shea: Okay, I will. I will. 00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:24.000 ED DeSeve: Thank you. And you all saw that the bill failed, the budget bill failed, and. 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:22.000 Robert Shea: No. 00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:26.000 Steve Redburn: Yeah. 00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:26.000 ED DeSeve: A shutdown is looming. 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:30.000 Robert Shea: I did not. 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:32.000 ED DeSeve: I just… I just sent it… I just sent it to you if you need it. 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:31.000 Philip Joyce: I didn't see it in. 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:34.000 Steve Redburn: Yeah, yeah, see it. 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:40.000 Steve Redburn: Just a little while ago. So, Julian, are you managing the slides for all of us? Okay. 00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:42.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Yeah, just let me know when to move forward. 00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:44.000 Steve Redburn: Yeah. 00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:44.000 Philip Joyce: Okay. 00:09:44.000 --> 00:09:46.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Okay, and it… 00:09:44.000 --> 00:09:48.000 ED DeSeve: Move forward, will you see the enemy's whites of their eyes? 00:09:49.000 --> 00:09:52.000 ED DeSeve: Don't move forward until then. 00:09:51.000 --> 00:09:53.000 Philip Joyce: Mm-hmm. 00:09:53.000 --> 00:09:56.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Um, is everyone okay if we record the session? 00:09:53.000 --> 00:09:55.000 ED DeSeve: I'm down here in sunny Florida. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:58.000 Steve Redburn: Yes. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:59.000 ED DeSeve: Please. Please. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:58.000 Philip Joyce: Yes. 00:09:57.000 --> 00:10:04.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Okay, great. I'm gonna start the recording, and then I'll let… or let me let everyone in, and then I'll start the recording. How's that? 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:06.000 ED DeSeve: Okay. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:08.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Alright. I'm gonna admit everyone. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:06.000 Robert Shea: Great. 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:10.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): No. 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.000 Robert Shea: Steve Akin. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:40.000 Robert Shea: My goodness. 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:48.000 ED DeSeve: Barry Anderson. 00:10:53.000 --> 00:10:58.000 Robert Shea: We're waiting for folks to log on, and then we'll get started. 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:00.000 Robert Shea: Thanks, everybody, for joining. 00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:12.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): We've got people still joining, but whenever you're ready. 00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:11.000 Philip Joyce: Hmm. 00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:19.000 Robert Shea: Okay, we'll give folks just a minute. I don't even think it's 1 o'clock yet, or 2 o'clock yet, so… 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:22.000 Robert Shea: Give people 90 seconds. 00:11:53.000 --> 00:11:56.000 Robert Shea: Well, whatever happened to the whole music we talked about, Gillian? 00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:04.000 Robert Shea: What's Phil Joyce's walk-on music? 00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:06.000 Robert Shea: What's your walk-on song, Phil? 00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:10.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, gosh, I don't have one. I should have one. 00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:12.000 Robert Shea: I didn't… yeah, let's work on that. 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:15.000 Philip Joyce: I should have one. I was disappointed there weren't snacks in the green room. 00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:14.000 Robert Shea: Yes. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:19.000 Robert Shea: DoorDash is on its way. 00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:19.000 Philip Joyce: Mm-hmm. 00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:27.000 Robert Shea: Um, okay, let's get started then. We've got a significant crew already logged on. 00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:36.000 Robert Shea: Thank you all for joining the special meeting of the Standing Panel on Executive Organization and Management of the National Academy of Public Administration. 00:12:36.000 --> 00:12:44.000 Robert Shea: Um, we've moved from a regular monthly meeting to sort of an ad hoc meeting to handle. 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:47.000 Robert Shea: Some of the big emerging issues in. 00:12:47.000 --> 00:12:52.000 Robert Shea: Uh, executive branch management that have emerged over the last several years. 00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:55.000 Robert Shea: And my friend Ed DeSeve. 00:12:55.000 --> 00:12:59.000 Robert Shea: Thought that this subject would be a great, uh, one. 00:12:59.000 --> 00:13:05.000 Robert Shea: for a panel meeting. Um, and so we're featuring today a manifesto. 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:12.000 Robert Shea: Um, that was created under the auspices of Reform for results. 00:13:13.000 --> 00:13:18.000 Robert Shea: Um, and a subset of the authors of that manifesto. 00:13:19.000 --> 00:13:24.000 Robert Shea: Which is about the need to radically reform the federal budget process, are going to present. 00:13:24.000 --> 00:13:26.000 Robert Shea: That to us today. 00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:32.000 Robert Shea: Before I hand it over to Phil, uh, let me just ask that. 00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:40.000 Robert Shea: Uh, everybody mute yourselves while folks are presenting, and if you could put your questions in the chat. 00:13:40.000 --> 00:13:45.000 Robert Shea: We will handle those, um, after the presentation. 00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:50.000 Robert Shea: So, nobody has any questions before we start. 00:13:50.000 --> 00:13:52.000 Robert Shea: I'll hand it over to Phil Joyce. 00:13:52.000 --> 00:13:59.000 Robert Shea: Who's probably well known to all of you. Professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and one of the. 00:13:59.000 --> 00:14:06.000 Robert Shea: country's leading experts on the federal budget process. Thanks for your work on this, Phil, and to the rest of the authors. 00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:11.000 Robert Shea: Um, but thanks also for being here today. So I hand it over to you. 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:23.000 Philip Joyce: Great, um, thanks, Robert. So, um, there are 3 of us that are going to present this today, but I want to give credit to the other 3 that are part of the Reform for Results team, which is, um, Ed DeSeve. 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:34.000 Philip Joyce: and Terry Gullo and Doug Cristello. And so, what we're going to be talking about today is a joint product of the six of us, and we have been working, really, for the last year. 00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:42.000 Thomas Kahn: I am truly sorry about all of it. 00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:41.000 Philip Joyce: under… under the auspices of, um, of, uh, Reform for results. 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:46.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, whoever is not muted should mute yourselves, please. 00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:59.000 Philip Joyce: Um, so, uh, so what we're going to do today is we hope to spend no more than about 30 minutes kind of talking about what we're up to, and then leave plenty of time for, um. 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:10.000 Philip Joyce: for Q&A. So, uh, if we could go on to… if… Gillian, I don't… are the… I don't see the slides, so if you could put them up, then we'll get started. 00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:19.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Hopefully you can see my screen, there we go. 00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:23.000 Philip Joyce: There we go, there you are. Okay, so if you can go to the, uh, the second slide. 00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:36.000 Philip Joyce: So there are really, um, three pieces to this, and there are… each one of us is going to sort of take a piece. My job here is to try to talk about some past reform efforts and what they were trying to do. 00:15:36.000 --> 00:15:47.000 Philip Joyce: and then to document some major current problems in federal budgeting, which probably I don't need to spend much time on for a group that would choose to come and listen to this. And then Roy. 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:55.000 Philip Joyce: is going to do the second part, which is sort of the meat of this, which is to talk about 10 standards. 00:15:55.000 --> 00:16:05.000 Philip Joyce: for effective budgeting, which, um, he initially had developed, uh, 30 years ago, but which have stood the test of time, and we… and he has sort of updated them. 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:16.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, and then in the third part, uh, Steve Redburn is gonna talk about the need for a radical reform agenda and lay out some sort of key questions that we think. 00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:22.000 Philip Joyce: should be the focus of any reform effort, so if we can move on. 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:36.000 Philip Joyce: So, uh, you know, reform of the budget process is nothing new, and uh, probably, again, those of you who are on this call don't need to be told anything that's on here, but just sort of briefly. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:45.000 Philip Joyce: To talk about what the various reforms, you know, really in the last 100 years and what they were trying to do have been. 00:16:45.000 --> 00:16:56.000 Philip Joyce: you know, starting with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the executive budget and, you know, important fiscal institutions, which, you know, the Bureau of the Budget, which became the Office of Management Budget. 00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:09.000 Philip Joyce: and then GAO, and then the, uh, important present commission on Budget Concepts in 1967, establishing sort of conventions for budgeting and federal accounting. 00:17:09.000 --> 00:17:17.000 Philip Joyce: And then the Budget Empoundment Control Act of 1974, which was really trying to reassert the congressional role in, um. 00:17:17.000 --> 00:17:25.000 Philip Joyce: budgeting and create an infrastructure for budgeting at sort of a macro level, but also created the budget committees and CBO. 00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:27.000 Philip Joyce: Um, and then… 00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:34.000 Philip Joyce: the deficit-based budget reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, things like Graham-Rudman, Budget Enforcement Act, etc. 00:17:34.000 --> 00:17:49.000 Philip Joyce: And then after 1990, a lot of the reforms have been focused on trying to bring more performance information into the budget process, things like the CFO Act and GPRA, and then the GPRA Modernization Act. Next slide, please. 00:17:51.000 --> 00:18:03.000 Philip Joyce: But, uh, shock, federal budgeting is now broken. Uh, what are… what is the evidence that federal budgeting is broken? Well, we have a few sort of pieces of evidence, and… 00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:09.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, you know, this does not represent every way that the federal budget process is broken. 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:15.000 Philip Joyce: But first, uh, an exploding debt, um, and, you know, an exploding debt. 00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:22.000 Philip Joyce: is not itself a process problem, but I think it is a process problem that we have no overall fiscal goal. 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:37.000 Philip Joyce: And the debt, in fact, has risen from less than 40% of GDP in 2008 to more than 100% of GDP now. And I think, importantly, there are no current norms that are guiding overall fiscal policy. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:42.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, whether that norm is debt as a percentage of GDP, or a balanced budget, or anything else. 00:18:42.000 --> 00:18:48.000 Philip Joyce: Um, it is particularly timely to talk about the lack of timeliness in the process. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:56.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, and that has a couple of problems. Uh, first, routinely, government by continuing resolution. 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:07.000 Philip Joyce: Um, but then, uh, even more significantly, periodic harmful government shutdowns. We already had one government shutdown this year, the longest one in history. 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:15.000 Philip Joyce: We are on the verge, potentially, of another government shutdown, which is going to affect fewer agencies, but nonetheless is going to be damaging. 00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:18.000 Philip Joyce: Um, and… 00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:30.000 Philip Joyce: it's not only about the appropriations process. In fact, no budget deadlines are routinely met. The President's budget is now routinely late, the budget resolution is not enacted on time, and of course, especially. 00:19:30.000 --> 00:19:38.000 Philip Joyce: The appropriations process, and that contributes to a reduction in the effectiveness of government, but also loss of public trust. 00:19:38.000 --> 00:19:40.000 Philip Joyce: Next slide, please. 00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:44.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, next, please. 00:19:46.000 --> 00:19:50.000 Philip Joyce: Third, uh… no, I'm sorry, go back. 00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:02.000 Philip Joyce: Third, the norms of budgeting that are reflected mostly in relationships between the branches have. 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:07.000 Philip Joyce: collapsed. Uh, it is… executive orders… 00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:15.000 Philip Joyce: have been very prevalent in the Trump administration, but they're not new. Executive orders have been used as a substitute for legislating. 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:22.000 Philip Joyce: But what we have seen, uh, in particular recently in this administration, is more unilateral executive actions. 00:20:22.000 --> 00:20:28.000 Philip Joyce: Most specifically, impoundments threatening the congressional power of the purse, and the whole sort of notion of. 00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:36.000 Philip Joyce: You know, who has the authority, uh, you know, to sort of set the parameters of federal spending is under threat. 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:46.000 Philip Joyce: And then, uh, improved information, which I think it's… it's… it is without question that the amount of information that participants have. 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:58.000 Philip Joyce: has improved, but it has not led to improved fiscal outcomes, and it has not necessarily led to desired improvements, at least at the level that I think should happen in government performance. 00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:11.000 Philip Joyce: So you have agencies like CBO and GAO providing the Congress with better data, but they're frequently ignored. And I would go beyond frequently ignored. They are sometimes attacked by the very institution, meaning the Congress, that they're supposed to be supporting. 00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:23.000 Philip Joyce: And reforms such as GPRA, I think it is unquestionably true they've substantially improved the availability of performance data, but those data have not been routinely used by Congress and the White House. 00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:25.000 Philip Joyce: Next slide, please. 00:21:27.000 --> 00:21:37.000 Philip Joyce: So, how should we address these problems? Um, you know, deciding how to deal with these and other challenges, I think, requires us to ask a simple question, and that simple question. 00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:46.000 Philip Joyce: which is a complicated… has complicated answers, which we're gonna… Roy's gonna talk about in a minute, is what do we expect an effective budget process to do? 00:21:46.000 --> 00:21:54.000 Philip Joyce: And if we want to answer that question, it requires us to analyze the myriad things that we expect the budget process to accomplish. 00:21:54.000 --> 00:22:06.000 Philip Joyce: So our approach in this manifesto is to start with a comprehensive listing of the norms for a well-functioning budget process. Only then can we identify where we're falling short and what we might do then in response. 00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:16.000 Philip Joyce: So, having set that up, I'm going to turn it over to Roy, who's going to talk about where we might find those norms for an effective budget process. 00:22:17.000 --> 00:22:25.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, thanks, Phil, and could we go to the next slide? Uh, I want to start by saying it's been a great pleasure to work with my five colleagues. 00:22:25.000 --> 00:22:30.000 Roy Meyers: All of whom really done great work over their careers on federal budgeting and financial management. 00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:38.000 Roy Meyers: The approach of my article about 30 years ago will remind a lot of you of some of the. 00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:45.000 Roy Meyers: the literature that we either read or taught in public administration, the debate between Wildowski and the rationalists. 00:22:45.000 --> 00:22:51.000 Roy Meyers: But mostly what I did was, uh, collate and organize statements by budget practitioners. 00:22:51.000 --> 00:22:56.000 Roy Meyers: that justified their arguments about how the budget process should work, and I identified. 00:22:56.000 --> 00:22:59.000 Roy Meyers: 10 standards for good budgeting. 00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:05.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, and last fall on Substack, I updated that previous article, which I'm drawing from today. 00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:13.000 Roy Meyers: Recently, Steve brought to my attention a, uh, OECD report called Quality Budget Institution. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:22.000 Roy Meyers: If you need some reading material, it's 178 pages long, and it compares practices in a lot of countries that are members of OECD. 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:29.000 Roy Meyers: And one thing I liked about it, among many things, is that it had a list of 10 standards that were pretty similar to mine. 00:23:31.000 --> 00:23:36.000 Roy Meyers: So I'm going to start with the 3 out of 10 standards where I think the record is pretty good, at least in my opinion. 00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:38.000 Roy Meyers: Until this year. 00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:41.000 Roy Meyers: So, next slide, please. 00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:48.000 Roy Meyers: And the first is that the idea that budget should be comprehensive. 00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:55.000 Roy Meyers: And historically, again, that's been pretty good. Phil mentioned the, uh, fiscal 69 adoption of the unified budget. 00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:01.000 Roy Meyers: Another example of increasing comprehensiveness was in 1985, when. 00:24:01.000 --> 00:24:04.000 Roy Meyers: OMB Director Dave Stockman took. 00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:10.000 Roy Meyers: uh, some programs that both Democrats and Republicans have tried to hide off budget and put them back on budget. 00:24:11.000 --> 00:24:16.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, another move towards comprehensiveness occurred several decades before that. 00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:19.000 Roy Meyers: in 1968, when Stanley Surrey. 00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:24.000 Roy Meyers: who is the head of the Office of Tax Policy, published the first list of tax expenditures. 00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:34.000 Roy Meyers: And similar publications are now issued by Joint Committee on Taxation, but as a negative, that form of spending is still not well integrated into the budget process. 00:24:35.000 --> 00:24:37.000 Roy Meyers: And getting to what's happening this year. 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:45.000 Roy Meyers: And what happened last year? Last year, OMB did not publish a list of tax expenditures. 00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:53.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, the analytical prospectus volume went missing in most of its parts, nor did President Trump submit a complete budget. 00:24:53.000 --> 00:24:57.000 Roy Meyers: And so that is really a blow towards comprehensiveness. 00:24:57.000 --> 00:25:05.000 Roy Meyers: In addition, the administration has made a lot of industrial policy deals that appear to be inadequately captured by current budget concepts. 00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:08.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:21.000 Roy Meyers: Second standard is legitimate, the idea that important budget decisions are made by legally responsible authorities, and under the Constitution, and with the laws that Congress and President have adopted. 00:25:22.000 --> 00:25:27.000 Roy Meyers: That starts with a presidential submission of the budget, followed by Congress passing laws. 00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:31.000 Roy Meyers: And the executive then spending in accordance with those laws. 00:25:31.000 --> 00:25:37.000 Roy Meyers: And then that's the way it usually worked, and worked well with some important exceptions, such as Nixon's impoundments. 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:42.000 Roy Meyers: The downside has been micromanagement by Congress. 00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:47.000 Roy Meyers: And I think we probably have a range of opinions about whether that's a minor nuisance or a major problem. 00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:54.000 Roy Meyers: To prevent any misunderstanding of that last statement, though, I want to make at least a personal comment. 00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:02.000 Roy Meyers: that I think it's the right of Congress and its duty to use appropriations bills to ensure that federal agencies follow the Constitution. 00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:07.000 Roy Meyers: and statutory law for both citizens and non-citizens alike. 00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:11.000 Roy Meyers: That's the issue that's central to the likely shutdown that's coming up. 00:26:12.000 --> 00:26:17.000 Roy Meyers: There's no question that budget legitimacy has taken a huge hit over the past year. 00:26:17.000 --> 00:26:22.000 Roy Meyers: The Trump administration has engaged in a multi-front war on Article 1. 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:25.000 Roy Meyers: with congressional Republicans often collaborating. 00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:34.000 Roy Meyers: And Phil has made the point in two really excellent articles that that really is pretty short-sighted for Republicans because they're going to be in the minority at some time. 00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:40.000 Roy Meyers: Arguably, this loss of legitimacy is the greatest problem we have now with federal budgeting. 00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:42.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:26:46.000 --> 00:26:51.000 Roy Meyers: Honesty is the third area where I think we've been pretty good as a country, and in fact. 00:26:51.000 --> 00:26:55.000 Roy Meyers: arguably, the U.S. has been world-class in this respect in many areas. 00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:01.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, particularly with our economic statistics agencies, and some of the work done by CBO. 00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:04.000 Roy Meyers: And OMB to some extent. 00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:11.000 Roy Meyers: We still have some challenges with budget concepts, and it's also the case that both Democrat and Republicans. 00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:15.000 Roy Meyers: Use macroeconomic assumptions that are too optimistic at times. 00:27:16.000 --> 00:27:24.000 Roy Meyers: But right now, we have a tragic situation where the economic statistics agencies have been attacked, such as the firing of the BLS director. 00:27:24.000 --> 00:27:29.000 Roy Meyers: And as Phil mentioned, CBO and GAO have been under attack, too. 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:35.000 Roy Meyers: A final point on honesty, to broaden the interpretation of this standard. 00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:41.000 Roy Meyers: It's worth remembering that one reason governments adopted executive budgets at the beginning of the 20th century. 00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:44.000 Roy Meyers: Was to promote honesty. 00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:50.000 Roy Meyers: And to do that, they wanted to empower the executive, and that was supposed to limit corruption, and it did. 00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:57.000 Roy Meyers: You may have seen the New York Times last week that reported that President Trump directly earned $1.4 billion last year. 00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:00.000 Roy Meyers: from his actions. 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:02.000 Roy Meyers: And that doesn't include… 00:28:02.000 --> 00:28:09.000 Roy Meyers: his family's earnings, nor does it count the much greater earnings of donors who have enjoyed regulatory leniency and budget favoritism. 00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:12.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:20.000 Roy Meyers: Now, the remaining several standards, in my opinion, uh, performance ranges from fair to terrible. 00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:23.000 Roy Meyers: And under transparency. 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:27.000 Roy Meyers: I'd have to say that that's, uh, fair to poor. 00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:35.000 Roy Meyers: In the OECD report I mentioned, there are 39 text boxes on exemplary practices that these different countries exhibit. 00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:40.000 Roy Meyers: And there's only one on U.S. practices, about credit form. 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:43.000 Roy Meyers: Which was an increase in budget transparency, an excellent one. 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:49.000 Roy Meyers: But reality is that most citizens do not understand budget decisions or the budget process. 00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:55.000 Roy Meyers: And that's understandable, given its unnecessary complexity and abundant jargon. 00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:05.000 Roy Meyers: The nature of that, if you want to define budgeting broadly, is the Doge wall of receipts, which didn't add up, to put it charitably. 00:29:06.000 --> 00:29:12.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, there are a lot of OECD countries that provide better information to their citizens about the budget. 00:29:13.000 --> 00:29:21.000 Roy Meyers: One example I really like is the Netherlands, which provides pre-election budget analyses of the many different parties' platforms. 00:29:22.000 --> 00:29:24.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:31.000 Roy Meyers: Timeliness. Well, the base level of this is obviously terrible, and I don't need to repeat what Phil said. 00:29:31.000 --> 00:29:39.000 Roy Meyers: All I will say is that something's very wrong when the good news is that appropriations may be passed one-third into the fiscal year. 00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:42.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:29:44.000 --> 00:29:51.000 Roy Meyers: cooperative. And this is not something that's often discussed when we talk about the budget process, but I think it's tremendously important. 00:29:51.000 --> 00:29:55.000 Roy Meyers: And here, I would say, I think the process is quite poor. 00:29:55.000 --> 00:30:00.000 Roy Meyers: That we spend so much time on unresolved budgetary conflicts. 00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:05.000 Roy Meyers: And that means less time is spent than is desirable on 3 things. 00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:08.000 Roy Meyers: First of all, the oversight of governmental programs. 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:11.000 Roy Meyers: Second, on designing more effective policies. 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:17.000 Roy Meyers: And third, and what we probably should start with in the first place, which is better understanding current conditions in the country. 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:25.000 Roy Meyers: It's also been the trend for the last 3 decades that party leaders are not allowing legislative committees to go to work. 00:30:25.000 --> 00:30:30.000 Roy Meyers: That is, there's not a cooperative relationship between the leaders and the committees, it's just leadership dominance. 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:37.000 Roy Meyers: And we believe that the reforms of the budget process in Congress more generally should re-empower the committees. 00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:44.000 Roy Meyers: I'm not going to get into the monetary policy issue, but we can talk about that later if we want to. Next slide, please. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:50.000 Roy Meyers: Perceptive, looking long-term. 00:30:51.000 --> 00:30:55.000 Roy Meyers: And here, we can have some differences of opinion, I would think, about whether it's fair to poor. 00:30:56.000 --> 00:31:01.000 Roy Meyers: I'm just going to describe two cases in which I think the budget is not adequately considering the long term. 00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:10.000 Roy Meyers: The first is that we all know that current projections are that Social Security can pay fully scheduled benefits only for the next 6 to 7 years. 00:31:11.000 --> 00:31:16.000 Roy Meyers: But we also know that we've known about that problem for many years before now. 00:31:16.000 --> 00:31:22.000 Roy Meyers: And in fact, recent legislation from 2024 and 2025 made the problem worse. 00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:30.000 Roy Meyers: Second, we had this recent fight about whether to extend the enhanced health insurance premium subsidies. 00:31:30.000 --> 00:31:34.000 Roy Meyers: Which is just the latest example of many so-called cliffs. 00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:40.000 Roy Meyers: When spending increases and tax cuts that sponsors truly intend to be permanent. 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:43.000 Roy Meyers: Are first enacted only as temporary. 00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:50.000 Roy Meyers: Just thinking about investments more broadly, it's hard to argue that the federal government invests well. 00:31:50.000 --> 00:31:56.000 Roy Meyers: And we don't have time to talk about all the aspects, but I want to mention one thing, which is in its own capacities. 00:31:57.000 --> 00:32:03.000 Roy Meyers: You know, one counterexample is the U.S. Digital Services team, but that's now defunct. 00:32:03.000 --> 00:32:06.000 Roy Meyers: And in fact, uh, killed by Doge. 00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:15.000 Roy Meyers: Which carried out a lot of personal actions that have been short-sighted, killing institutional knowledge in the agencies, which will have budget impacts for years to come. 00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:18.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:22.000 Roy Meyers: The 8 standard judgmental budgets. 00:32:22.000 --> 00:32:25.000 Roy Meyers: And Phil mentioned this as well. 00:32:25.000 --> 00:32:31.000 Roy Meyers: I think you'd have to say that the base level is perhaps fair. We did adopt GIPRA and. 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:34.000 Roy Meyers: There have been substantial improvements in the, uh… 00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:40.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, in the executive branch for that. The process sometimes does generate value for money. 00:32:40.000 --> 00:32:45.000 Roy Meyers: Including through traditional reviews by appropriations and authorizing committees. 00:32:46.000 --> 00:32:52.000 Roy Meyers: However, it's, I think, important to realize that committee jurisdictions. 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:57.000 Roy Meyers: And the separation between appropriations, authorizations, and revenue legislation. 00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:00.000 Roy Meyers: Means that in many policy sectors. 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:03.000 Roy Meyers: Policies are uncoordinated. 00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:07.000 Roy Meyers: My favorite examples are health policy and housing policy. 00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:13.000 Roy Meyers: A portfolio budgeting approach that Steve has advocated in the past would reduce this problem. 00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:33:21.000 --> 00:33:23.000 Roy Meyers: Okay, constrained. 00:33:23.000 --> 00:33:27.000 Roy Meyers: That… and there are different ways of defining this. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:30.000 Roy Meyers: Budgeting limiting the amount of money that need be acquired by government. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:33.000 Roy Meyers: Fair to poor, perhaps. 00:33:33.000 --> 00:33:38.000 Roy Meyers: We've had a steady growth of entitlements and step increases in deficits from the financial crisis. 00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:40.000 Roy Meyers: COVID and tax bills. 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:44.000 Roy Meyers: And we could have differences of opinion about whether those were intelligent or not. 00:33:45.000 --> 00:33:51.000 Roy Meyers: But what we don't have is a regular extended debate about the extent to which deficit should be constrained. 00:33:52.000 --> 00:33:56.000 Roy Meyers: Both parties have really been shirking their responsibility to have that debate. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:34:02.000 Roy Meyers: And we now have a debt market that's sending signals that it doubts there is an effective process for a constraint. 00:34:03.000 --> 00:34:06.000 Roy Meyers: If you look at the yield premiums on long bonds. 00:34:06.000 --> 00:34:08.000 Roy Meyers: And I think those signals are going to intensify. 00:34:10.000 --> 00:34:11.000 Roy Meyers: Next slide, please. 00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:16.000 Roy Meyers: And the final standard of responsiveness. 00:34:16.000 --> 00:34:19.000 Roy Meyers: The budget policies match public preferences. 00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:24.000 Roy Meyers: The base level here is, I don't have a clue about how to figure out what this is. 00:34:25.000 --> 00:34:27.000 Roy Meyers: How to grade it. 00:34:27.000 --> 00:34:34.000 Roy Meyers: You know, one way of thinking about this is to look at the responses by citizens to simplistic polling questions. 00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:42.000 Roy Meyers: The way that polls are often framed, citizens say they simultaneously want higher spending, lower taxes, and balanced budgets. 00:34:43.000 --> 00:34:45.000 Roy Meyers: Yes, that's irrational. 00:34:45.000 --> 00:34:50.000 Roy Meyers: But it's also the message that citizens often get from the partisan political process. 00:34:50.000 --> 00:34:54.000 Roy Meyers: And so, somehow, we need to figure out how to. 00:34:54.000 --> 00:34:59.000 Roy Meyers: Do a better job in educating citizens and helping politicians respond. 00:34:59.000 --> 00:35:02.000 Roy Meyers: to the best interests of the citizens. 00:35:03.000 --> 00:35:05.000 Roy Meyers: Next and… next slide, please. 00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:13.000 Roy Meyers: I hope you can use that list of 10 thinners to help you with your thinking about how the process can be improved. 00:35:14.000 --> 00:35:21.000 Roy Meyers: To me, the standards where we need most improvement are legitimacy, constraint, and judgmental. Your priorities may differ. 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:28.000 Roy Meyers: As with budget policy, there are also potential trade-offs and synergies between the reforms that can be adopted. 00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:37.000 Roy Meyers: The last couple bullets talk about political feasibility, and perhaps we can discuss those ideas after Steve Redburn's conclusion to our presentation. 00:35:38.000 --> 00:35:40.000 Roy Meyers: And in response to your comments and questions. 00:35:40.000 --> 00:35:42.000 Roy Meyers: Thanks. Steve? 00:35:44.000 --> 00:35:47.000 Steve Redburn: Thanks, Roy. 00:35:47.000 --> 00:35:54.000 Steve Redburn: So, Roy and Phil have made the case. I hope everyone will agree that, uh. 00:35:54.000 --> 00:36:01.000 Steve Redburn: Patching the current process is not an option, that the… there are major weaknesses that have to be addressed. 00:36:01.000 --> 00:36:06.000 Steve Redburn: And that we're going to need some big ideas for comprehensive reform of that process, and… 00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:18.000 Steve Redburn: We're going to need others to help us develop those, starting today. And we recognize that we need to draw on experience to the extent we can, and evidence of what works. 00:36:18.000 --> 00:36:26.000 Steve Redburn: And we have to recognize that there are constraints. One of the biggest constraints being the constitutional structure that divides. 00:36:26.000 --> 00:36:31.000 Steve Redburn: Responsibility and authority between the legislative and executive branches. 00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:38.000 Steve Redburn: And also, uh, the limited limits on institutional and individual capacity or capability. 00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:44.000 Steve Redburn: And politics, a small word, but a heavy, heavy lift. 00:36:45.000 --> 00:36:50.000 Steve Redburn: We have to recognize the incentives that the major actors all face, uh, that got. 00:36:50.000 --> 00:36:56.000 Steve Redburn: That shape their decisions. So, how do we organize for this next stage? Next slide, please. 00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:03.000 Steve Redburn: What we've begun to do is identify some lines of inquiry that we want to pursue in depth. 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:13.000 Steve Redburn: And the first is, uh, how can… and these are… each is addressed to a major set of weaknesses that we've identified, or as you can see in parentheses. 00:37:13.000 --> 00:37:19.000 Steve Redburn: addressed to the standards of good budgeting, uh, that, uh, Roy. 00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:21.000 Steve Redburn: Just summarized. 00:37:22.000 --> 00:37:28.000 Steve Redburn: How can Congress and the President collaborate to enact timely budgets in an era of polarization? 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:39.000 Steve Redburn: And given institutional obstacles, what we want to see is a perhaps less cumbersome process that doesn't get in the way of people working and slowing. 00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:43.000 Steve Redburn: Slows things down. We want to also, perhaps, uh… 00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:51.000 Steve Redburn: Experience suggests that there are too many decisions that have to be made in the limited time available prior to the beginning of a fiscal year. 00:37:51.000 --> 00:37:57.000 Steve Redburn: And that we may need to make the workload less onerous for people. 00:37:57.000 --> 00:38:08.000 Steve Redburn: So we need to think about how to approach that, and unfortunately, there are not so many relevant international examples, certainly parliamentary systems where. 00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:18.000 Steve Redburn: authorities concentrated in one branch in the government, which has the majority and therefore doesn't really need to make a strong case for its budget to. 00:38:19.000 --> 00:38:31.000 Steve Redburn: to Parliament. That's not very, very useful for our thinking. But there are some presidential systems. I think it's also use… we're going to look at, uh, the relationships between governors and state legislatures, because states. 00:38:31.000 --> 00:38:39.000 Steve Redburn: have a similar constitutional structure where responsibility for developing and enacting the budget is divided between the two branches. So. 00:38:39.000 --> 00:38:45.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, we… we will… we will work, um, through those examples and see if we can find. 00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:54.000 Steve Redburn: states that have, uh, developed processes that work more smoothly. Uh, so that's just to give you an example. Another, another line of inquiry, um… 00:38:55.000 --> 00:38:56.000 Steve Redburn: Julie, next slide. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:03.000 Steve Redburn: How can the public be given a meaningful role in formulating budgets? 00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:11.000 Steve Redburn: One that allows them to develop an informed consensus on what priorities are. 00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:16.000 Steve Redburn: And how to deploy resources to meet the biggest policy challenges. 00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:23.000 Steve Redburn: And to rebuild legitimacy and trust in the process. Um, with current process, I think it's fair to say there's a culture of. 00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:33.000 Steve Redburn: secrecy around the process. Many of the procedures are arcane. The terminology and its application is arcane. 00:39:33.000 --> 00:39:39.000 Steve Redburn: mysterious to nearly everybody outside the Beltway and maybe most people inside the Beltway. 00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:45.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, there's certainly, as has been emphasized already, a lack of transparency. 00:39:45.000 --> 00:39:55.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, especially now. Uh, so we need to somehow open the process up, make the public able to understand what's going on. 00:39:55.000 --> 00:40:01.000 Steve Redburn: And perhaps also give them a role in deliberations prior to, or as part of the development of. 00:40:01.000 --> 00:40:07.000 Steve Redburn: of the budget. A couple of countries that OECD has looked at as case studies. 00:40:07.000 --> 00:40:14.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, have a role for citizens to play on a recurring basis as budgets are developed. 00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:23.000 Steve Redburn: Ireland is one example where there's a regular two-way dialogue every year about the economic and budget outlook. 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:33.000 Steve Redburn: Canada has experimented with this. There are very limited examples, but there are other people working on what's sometimes called deliberative democracy, and we might look at their. 00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:39.000 Steve Redburn: Um, practical, uh, examples there, uh, for example. 00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:42.000 Steve Redburn: Um, Jim Fishman at, uh… 00:40:42.000 --> 00:40:47.000 Steve Redburn: Stanford has conducted a large number of. 00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:52.000 Steve Redburn: Of, um, practical experiments, experimentally designed, um. 00:40:52.000 --> 00:40:59.000 Steve Redburn: Deliberative democracy, uh, exercises focused on how to get people to reach. 00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:07.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, to think through and reach consensus on big, tough policy questions, and some of that could be adapted, perhaps, to. 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:15.000 Steve Redburn: the budget process. So that's just, again, just an opening suggestion of how we might approach that problem. 00:41:16.000 --> 00:41:22.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, third, how can budgets be informed, uh, decisions be informed by evidence and a strategic approach? 00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:28.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, to achieving the highest policy priorities. Roy mentioned. 00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:35.000 Steve Redburn: uh, the work that, uh, Paul Posner and I did a few years ago on portfolio budgeting, which, uh. 00:41:35.000 --> 00:41:41.000 Steve Redburn: Starts with, uh, not the unit of analysis being as it is now, the program or the budget account. 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:49.000 Steve Redburn: But a major policy objective, and then looks at the whole set of, or portfolio of. 00:41:49.000 --> 00:41:55.000 Steve Redburn: Spending programs, tax expenditures, regulations, other policies. 00:41:55.000 --> 00:42:07.000 Steve Redburn: that are relevant to achieving that policy objective. And what we're doing now with resources constitutes, essentially, implicitly, the current strategy for achieving progress on that. 00:42:07.000 --> 00:42:16.000 Steve Redburn: that, uh, front. And then to go into depth about how to, uh, how to use resources more effectively, more strategically to achieve. 00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:21.000 Steve Redburn: Better results, uh, and better return on public investment. 00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:24.000 Steve Redburn: And… 00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:30.000 Steve Redburn: Again, there's a lot of work to be done to develop that set of ideas and make it practical, so… 00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:36.000 Steve Redburn: But it is a way to get… bring tax expenditures, the, uh, widely overlooked, uh. 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:41.000 Steve Redburn: Part of federal spending to bring them more directly into the budget process. 00:42:41.000 --> 00:42:50.000 Steve Redburn: And to take less time with, uh, marginal questions about how do you increase this program by X dollars, or… 00:42:50.000 --> 00:43:04.000 Steve Redburn: or decrease it by X dollars, and instead to focus more of the time and energy in the process on these big questions. Around the world, these are known as spending reviews, and many countries conduct systematic spending reviews. 00:43:05.000 --> 00:43:08.000 Steve Redburn: each year. Okay, next slide. 00:43:08.000 --> 00:43:11.000 Steve Redburn: Couple more of these. 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:15.000 Steve Redburn: Gillian, there you go. Um… 00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:20.000 Steve Redburn: So, once budgets are enacted, how can the executive be held accountable for following the law? 00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:25.000 Steve Redburn: And achieving promised results as the budget is executed. 00:43:27.000 --> 00:43:37.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, problem that's very salient today, uh, I could, I could say that, uh, I could think like an economist and say, let's, let's assume a, a president. 00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:42.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, who, uh, will faithfully execute the laws. 00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:48.000 Steve Redburn: And that… in… in prior years, that's been, most of the time, a pretty safe. 00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:54.000 Steve Redburn: assumption to make, so let's assume that. Uh, so at some point, we'll have a different, uh… 00:43:54.000 --> 00:43:56.000 Steve Redburn: Situation where people are… 00:43:56.000 --> 00:43:58.000 Steve Redburn: Committed to, um… 00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:06.000 Steve Redburn: A more open and honest and legitimate process, uh, instead of unilateral actions that test the boundaries of. 00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:14.000 Steve Redburn: executive authority. Um, some people will be inclined to enact new laws to try to impose additional constraints on the executive. 00:44:14.000 --> 00:44:22.000 Steve Redburn: Um, but the first step, of course, is to use the laws that are in place, and to commit to, uh. 00:44:22.000 --> 00:44:27.000 Steve Redburn: Following those. And finally, at the same time, we're worried about. 00:44:27.000 --> 00:44:36.000 Steve Redburn: constraint and legitimacy and honesty. We have to think about how you… how the executive can be given the tools and flexibility. 00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:41.000 Steve Redburn: Needed to effectively implement enacted budgets and to manage for results. 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:47.000 Steve Redburn: In other words, we don't want the executive to be so hamstrung that they can't, uh… 00:44:48.000 --> 00:44:52.000 Steve Redburn: That the government can't be agile in the face of changing conditions. 00:44:53.000 --> 00:44:59.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, can't be strategic, looking over the long horizon and planning and investing for future. 00:44:59.000 --> 00:45:06.000 Steve Redburn: growth and to meet major policy objectives in a sustainable way. Um, all of that requires, uh… 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:09.000 Steve Redburn: Given where we are, um… 00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:16.000 Steve Redburn: Significant new investments in the public sector's capacity in the form of, uh. 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:21.000 Steve Redburn: IT systems and new business processes that will take advantage of, uh. 00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:28.000 Steve Redburn: of AI and other, uh, evolving, emerging opportunities on the technical side. 00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:35.000 Steve Redburn: So we need to think through how to do that. Uh, there was a… I'll just mention this one example of what we can draw on. 00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:42.000 Steve Redburn: a roundtable organized by the IBM Center for the Business of Government and the Shared Services Leadership. 00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:51.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, coalition 2 years ago, which resulted in a report that contains a large number of. 00:45:52.000 --> 00:45:57.000 Steve Redburn: Ideas of varying degrees of ambition about how to use the budget process. 00:45:57.000 --> 00:46:03.000 Steve Redburn: to improve federal management. Perhaps somebody could put a link to that in the chat. 00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:09.000 Steve Redburn: So that… that report is known as Opportunities for Management When Budgeting. 00:46:09.000 --> 00:46:19.000 Steve Redburn: So those are… those are, um, some of the lines of inquiry that we are pursuing, and we hope others will join us. And I'm going to hand it over now to Ed to kind of summarize and. 00:46:19.000 --> 00:46:23.000 Steve Redburn: And, uh, elaborate on that invitation. Ed? Ed said. 00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:33.000 ED DeSeve: Ed Joseph is unmuting, thank you. Uh, Gillian, as we talk, would you please. 00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:32.000 Steve Redburn: Okay. 00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:39.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, look at the questions in the chat, and start setting up a queue for us. I'll… 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:44.000 ED DeSeve: Um, let you be the arbiter of which order the question's going. 00:46:45.000 --> 00:46:50.000 ED DeSeve: You may have noticed we had more than 100 participants in this session. 00:46:50.000 --> 00:46:55.000 ED DeSeve: We would have had more, but we had a technical glitch that limited us at 100, and we'll… 00:46:55.000 --> 00:46:59.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, try to get rid of that glitch sometime in the future. 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:03.000 ED DeSeve: The group today is… 00:47:03.000 --> 00:47:08.000 ED DeSeve: One that I'm especially pleased to see when I… when I look at the names. 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:14.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, there are people who I've worked with over the years, and people who have a serious concern. 00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:20.000 ED DeSeve: About how to make budgeting a more important exercise, an important part. 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:24.000 ED DeSeve: More important part of our fiscal policy. 00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:29.000 ED DeSeve: We will… we were careful here to deal only with budget process. 00:47:29.000 --> 00:47:34.000 ED DeSeve: We didn't try to get into the ideas around the substance of the budget. 00:47:34.000 --> 00:47:40.000 ED DeSeve: Should it be balanced? Should it be capped as a percentage of GDP as to its deficits, and so on. 00:47:41.000 --> 00:47:47.000 ED DeSeve: Those are questions which we may deal with at some point in the future, but they're fundamentally political questions. 00:47:47.000 --> 00:47:53.000 ED DeSeve: And we decided that we were not going to step into the political arena. 00:47:53.000 --> 00:47:59.000 ED DeSeve: There are many others who are out there who are already in that arena, and we will consult with them. 00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:06.000 ED DeSeve: And we will consult with others on the Hill. There are several bills on the Hill that have been. 00:48:06.000 --> 00:48:11.000 ED DeSeve: either introduced or awaiting introduction. And we'll work with. 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:16.000 ED DeSeve: The minority and majority staffs, um, in those committees. 00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:23.000 ED DeSeve: To have this conversation, perhaps in a condensed form, for the staffs, and ultimately, perhaps. 00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:25.000 ED DeSeve: For the members themselves, because. 00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:30.000 ED DeSeve: setting up a template the way Roy has done and the way Steve has done. 00:48:30.000 --> 00:48:32.000 ED DeSeve: may provoke. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:37.000 ED DeSeve: Hopefully, and hope is not a strategy, may provoke, hopefully. 00:48:37.000 --> 00:48:44.000 ED DeSeve: um, some willingness to engage in reform. We don't expect over the next 2 or 3 years. 00:48:44.000 --> 00:48:50.000 ED DeSeve: To see something jump, uh, full blown from the head of Zeus. Not at all. 00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:56.000 ED DeSeve: But if we didn't start the conversation now, that's what a form for results is really about. 00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:02.000 ED DeSeve: Um, I see Frank Fukuyama is on the… on the call today, and I thank and welcome him. 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:07.000 ED DeSeve: Frank has been a leader, along with Don Kettle and Paul Verkyle. 00:49:07.000 --> 00:49:10.000 ED DeSeve: And others, in trying to say. 00:49:10.000 --> 00:49:17.000 ED DeSeve: Let's think about the long term, let's think about the major problems, um, as to. 00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:22.000 ED DeSeve: Regulation as to permitting, as to changes in the personnel. 00:49:22.000 --> 00:49:26.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, system itself that we really ought to focus on. 00:49:26.000 --> 00:49:33.000 ED DeSeve: And I want to, um, agree with Roy that this is a small group we have here. 00:49:33.000 --> 00:49:40.000 ED DeSeve: Is a terrifically harmonious one, and we really have had a good time doing this, believe it or not. 00:49:40.000 --> 00:49:48.000 ED DeSeve: And that, you know, that brings you to question our own psyches and why the we would think that that was a wonderful idea. 00:49:48.000 --> 00:49:50.000 ED DeSeve: But we do, and we all do. 00:49:50.000 --> 00:49:56.000 ED DeSeve: However, we welcome your comments, and we will try to, as best we can. 00:49:56.000 --> 00:50:01.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, codify those comments and put it in a document somewhere. 00:50:01.000 --> 00:50:05.000 ED DeSeve: That we will continually refresh over time. 00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:07.000 ED DeSeve: Um, this… 00:50:07.000 --> 00:50:14.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, production here today is being recorded, and if you missed some of it, some people were. 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:19.000 ED DeSeve: Unfortunately, shut out at the beginning. Uh, if you missed, um, some of the. 00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:26.000 ED DeSeve: comments. We would be delighted if you'll send, uh, Gillian, who's, I think, on… Gillian McGuffey, who's. 00:50:26.000 --> 00:50:31.000 ED DeSeve: Um, on the list, uh, send her a request, or send me a request. 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:37.000 ED DeSeve: Now, Robert Shea was nice enough to give over an EOM panel. 00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:42.000 ED DeSeve: to this, and I want to tell him how much I appreciated that. 00:50:42.000 --> 00:50:48.000 ED DeSeve: That, that giving over, because it gave us a place to stand, it gave us a place within. 00:50:48.000 --> 00:50:56.000 ED DeSeve: NAPA to stand. We don't expect that this is a product of NAPA. It's a product of reform for results. 00:50:56.000 --> 00:51:02.000 ED DeSeve: And we'll keep working on it. With that, Gillian I'm going to put you to work and ask you to pose. 00:51:02.000 --> 00:51:06.000 ED DeSeve: the first question. Um, and I'll… 00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:11.000 Robert Shea: So, so Ed, Gillian… Gillian… Gillian has handed me that baton, because, uh… 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:13.000 ED DeSeve: Oh, congratulations! Robert, wonderful. 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:12.000 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): Okay. 00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:13.000 Robert Shea: She's… she's… 00:51:13.000 --> 00:51:19.000 Robert Shea: She's handling this very exciting development, is which you've gotten more attendees than any EOM panel. 00:51:19.000 --> 00:51:25.000 Robert Shea: Uh, uh, which means we've exceeded the 100-person cap, and she's trying to fix that right now. 00:51:25.000 --> 00:51:31.000 ED DeSeve: Well, we appreciate that. Robert, we know that we knew that was going to be the case. When we did impoundment. 00:51:25.000 --> 00:51:27.000 Robert Shea: Um… 00:51:29.000 --> 00:51:31.000 Robert Shea: Right? Yeah. 00:51:31.000 --> 00:51:36.000 ED DeSeve: working with our friends at Arnold in July, we were over 150. So I… 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:38.000 Robert Shea: Wow. Great. 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:42.000 ED DeSeve: I very much expected that, especially under the umbrella of EOM I mean, my goodness. 00:51:42.000 --> 00:51:46.000 Robert Shea: That's right. It's cold fusion here at NAPA this afternoon. 00:51:46.000 --> 00:51:56.000 Robert Shea: Um, so, uh, the… let me… let me raise two points that Don Eggert and Virginia Huth raised. 00:51:56.000 --> 00:52:09.000 Robert Shea: Um, and they get to guardrails. Uh, um, Don raised the prospect of ignoring the Impoundment Act, and Virginia, the Anti-Deficiency Act, two sides of… 00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:12.000 Robert Shea: the same coin. Um… 00:52:12.000 --> 00:52:14.000 Robert Shea: Let's say… 00:52:14.000 --> 00:52:16.000 Robert Shea: the Supreme Court… 00:52:16.000 --> 00:52:24.000 Robert Shea: Um, uh, rules that the president's authority over, uh, for impoundments. 00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:29.000 Robert Shea: Um, can't be constrained by things like the Empoundment Act. 00:52:29.000 --> 00:52:31.000 Robert Shea: Or the anti-Deficiency Act. 00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:34.000 Robert Shea: What… what recourse do we have? 00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:39.000 Robert Shea: Um, to, you know, bring more, um… 00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:44.000 Robert Shea: uh… what's the word? Um… 00:52:44.000 --> 00:52:50.000 Robert Shea: strictures to the budget process. And, you know, let me say by thanking the. 00:52:50.000 --> 00:52:55.000 Robert Shea: the speakers and authors of this manifesto. I put a link to it in the chat. 00:52:55.000 --> 00:52:58.000 Robert Shea: Um… what… what… 00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:01.000 Robert Shea: What kinds of recommendations would you be looking for. 00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:06.000 Robert Shea: That would restore some of those constraints on executive authority, and bring some. 00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:09.000 Robert Shea: You know, bounds to the budget process overall. 00:53:09.000 --> 00:53:15.000 ED DeSeve: Uh, Phil, let me put that one in your… in your lap, because you're Mr. Impoundment. 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:23.000 Philip Joyce: Yeah, I was afraid you'd do that. Um, so, uh, you know, honestly, I'm not… 00:53:24.000 --> 00:53:31.000 Philip Joyce: I'm not very hopeful at the point at which the Supreme Court decides that the separation of powers was a bad idea. 00:53:32.000 --> 00:53:42.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, that, um, you know, that there's a lot that we can do. I mean, one of the things that really has sort of struck me, and I've talked to some people. 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:53.000 Philip Joyce: who I used to work with on the Hill about this, is how much of what we viewed as prior common practice was based not on laws, but on norms. 00:53:53.000 --> 00:54:06.000 Philip Joyce: You know, that is that the presumption was that people were operating… I hate to use a football, you know, analogy, but that people were operating within the 40-yard lines, right? And sometimes we went in one direction, sometimes we went another, but there were. 00:54:06.000 --> 00:54:15.000 Philip Joyce: There were general rules about the relationships between the branches in particular, you know, that people were following, at the point at which. 00:54:15.000 --> 00:54:21.000 Philip Joyce: Uh, you know, one or more actors are unwilling to sort of follow those norms. 00:54:22.000 --> 00:54:31.000 Philip Joyce: And if it gets challenged in court, and the, uh, and, you know, and the Supreme Court says that's all fine, then I think we're back to. 00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:41.000 Philip Joyce: you know, are we sort of electing people who fundamentally believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers or not? I don't think. 00:54:41.000 --> 00:54:46.000 Philip Joyce: the budget pro… I don't think reforms in the budget process can. 00:54:46.000 --> 00:54:53.000 Philip Joyce: can solve what are fundamentally political problems. Uh, and, you know, so I think it is important. 00:54:54.000 --> 00:54:57.000 Philip Joyce: That those, um… 00:54:57.000 --> 00:55:07.000 Philip Joyce: that those violations of things like the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act are identified when they occur, and that people understand. 00:55:07.000 --> 00:55:10.000 Philip Joyce: That this… that this is a fundamental. 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:19.000 Philip Joyce: challenge to the congressional power of the purse. And, you know, to reiterate the point that Roy had raised. 00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:28.000 Philip Joyce: I think it is particularly short-sighted of Republicans in Congress to not be protecting congressional prerogatives. 00:55:28.000 --> 00:55:35.000 Philip Joyce: Because that, even if… even if all I cared about was, um, you know, was… was my own political party. 00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:41.000 Philip Joyce: my party will not always be in control of the White House, and so I think that. 00:55:41.000 --> 00:55:50.000 Philip Joyce: You know, I think somehow this has to relate to this sort of broader, not only public education, but education of those in the political process. 00:55:50.000 --> 00:55:54.000 Philip Joyce: Of why it is that the separation of powers actually matters. 00:55:55.000 --> 00:55:59.000 Philip Joyce: And that's not a hopeful answer to the question, I'm afraid. 00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:08.000 Robert Shea: Well, I guess the other side of that is, what if those authorities are… if it's ruled that the president exceeded his authority. 00:56:09.000 --> 00:56:16.000 Robert Shea: Um, you still need improvements to appropriations language, and you do see. 00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:21.000 Robert Shea: the Congress asserting its authority, at least a little bit in the current drafts. 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:20.000 Philip Joyce: Right. 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:27.000 Robert Shea: Right, they're rectifying some flexibilities that they didn't know they granted. 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:23.000 Philip Joyce: Right. 00:56:27.000 --> 00:56:29.000 Philip Joyce: Right. 00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:31.000 Robert Shea: Um, so what would you be looking for then? 00:56:31.000 --> 00:56:39.000 Philip Joyce: Well, I think your point… I think that's a good point. I think that, you know, what that would invite, if the Congress was willing to stand up for itself, what that would invite. 00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:50.000 Philip Joyce: you know, presidential overreach, you know, could invite the Congress being much more explicit about, you know, what it is that it is expecting out of the. 00:56:50.000 --> 00:56:59.000 Philip Joyce: appropriations. Now, that creates its own problem. We've talked about micromanagement. You know, what we may be doing, and Steve and I have had this conversation in the past, is. 00:56:59.000 --> 00:57:08.000 Philip Joyce: To the extent that this encourages more congressional micromanagement of the executive branch, that could have its own, you know, sort of negatives. 00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:20.000 Philip Joyce: You know, but I would expect if the Congress was going to stand up for itself, that what we would see is much more detailed language in appropriation bills, you know, to try to constrain the ability of the executive branch. 00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:25.000 Robert Shea: Uh, so… oh, Steve, yeah. 00:57:25.000 --> 00:57:34.000 Steve Redburn: So, you know, Phil and I have had this conversation. I'm concerned that people not assume that every president will be like the current president in writing. 00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:43.000 Steve Redburn: A bunch of detailed instructions, uh, that try to bind the executive, which may or may not succeed. 00:57:43.000 --> 00:57:51.000 Steve Redburn: but will certainly degrade its capacity to deliver results. So we need to think about that at the same time we think about. 00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:59.000 Steve Redburn: restoring accountability. And I think the pendulum is… my optimism is that the pendulum will swing, because it has. 00:57:59.000 --> 00:58:02.000 Steve Redburn: Swung… many times. 00:58:01.000 --> 00:58:04.000 Robert Shea: I love your optimism, Steve. 00:58:03.000 --> 00:58:05.000 Roy Meyers: I could add one… one thing to that. 00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:10.000 Roy Meyers: You know, most political scientists like myself are still shocked that this has happened. 00:58:11.000 --> 00:58:17.000 Roy Meyers: If you… when I came to work in Congress, Jamie Wooden was the chair of appropriations. 00:58:17.000 --> 00:58:22.000 Roy Meyers: And it's… what has happened now is, of course, be unimaginable to him and. 00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:24.000 Roy Meyers: Almost all appropriators before now. 00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:30.000 Roy Meyers: So, one explanation is that the behavior of Republican appropriators is somewhat. 00:58:31.000 --> 00:58:37.000 Roy Meyers: Similar to the behavior that Kent Weaver identified in a classic paper wrote about blame avoidance. 00:58:37.000 --> 00:58:42.000 Roy Meyers: That is, they may be willing to see some of these cuts that. 00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:47.000 Roy Meyers: Have been put in place through impoundment, but they're unwilling to vote for them. 00:58:48.000 --> 00:58:53.000 Roy Meyers: And they're… this way, they're, they're able to get the results, but without. 00:58:53.000 --> 00:58:58.000 Roy Meyers: having to go back to the constituents and say, yes, I did vote for that cut. 00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:07.000 Roy Meyers: But of course, as Phil, as Steve mentioned, the pendulum was likely to swing back because that's not a sustainable strategy. 00:59:07.000 --> 00:59:09.000 Robert Shea: Right. 00:59:09.000 --> 00:59:15.000 Robert Shea: Um, so I had, uh, uh, Jeff Lovers, I hope I pronounced that right. 00:59:15.000 --> 00:59:18.000 Robert Shea: Wanted to dive deep in reconciliation. 00:59:18.000 --> 00:59:21.000 Robert Shea: Are they limited to one per session? 00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:29.000 Robert Shea: The Senate parliamentarian performed heroic work, but how likely is that that she'll be circumvented the next time? 00:59:29.000 --> 00:59:35.000 Robert Shea: Why aren't the GOP leaders moving to do another one? They actually are. They're planning one this summer. 00:59:35.000 --> 00:59:39.000 Robert Shea: And does it need reform or abolishment? Any… 00:59:39.000 --> 00:59:41.000 Robert Shea: Any discussion about… 00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:44.000 Robert Shea: Fiddling with reconciliation. 00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:50.000 Robert Shea: Who wants to answer? Anybody? 00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:49.000 Roy Meyers: Good. 00:59:50.000 --> 00:59:52.000 Roy Meyers: I'll start. 00:59:51.000 --> 00:59:53.000 Robert Shea: Yep. 00:59:52.000 --> 00:59:55.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, the idea of the parliamentarian. 00:59:55.000 --> 00:59:59.000 Roy Meyers: Performed a heroic service of perhaps… 00:59:59.000 --> 01:00:04.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, but if you look at, uh, Bill Dauster's remarkably long compendium. 01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:10.000 Roy Meyers: of budget process laws, you can find there are, I think, 250 or so pages. 01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:13.000 Roy Meyers: On precedence of trying to understand. 01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:16.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, what fits under the bird rule and what doesn't. 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:21.000 Roy Meyers: And if you look through those precedents, it'd be hard to see much logic to them. 01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:24.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, about what's budgetary or not. 01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:23.000 Robert Shea: Hmm. 01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:26.000 Roy Meyers: So… 01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:32.000 Roy Meyers: To me, that's an indication that the bird rule is not very helpful, and for that matter, reconciliation isn't either. 01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:43.000 Roy Meyers: personally, I'd be happy with it going away, but only if it were replaced with more radical reforms. And one of the things we're going to try and figure out is. 01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:50.000 Roy Meyers: how could Congress make it much more likely that committees would have the ability to bring bills to the floor? 01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:57.000 Roy Meyers: And that, in addition, opponents of those bills would have the opportunity to offer amendments. 01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:05.000 Roy Meyers: Uh, so that's… that's one of the topics that sounds as if it may not be that related to reconciliation. 01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:09.000 Roy Meyers: But I think when you really get into it, it's strongly related. 01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:16.000 Philip Joyce: If I could just add, I, um… I wrote a paper for the 50th anniversary of the. 01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:30.000 Philip Joyce: Budget Act, you know, an event that should be commemorated but not celebrated. Um, a, uh, that really raised this question, because my view is that the two biggest impacts of the 1974 Budget Act have been CBO and reconciliation. 01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:48.000 Philip Joyce: And the question is, this fourth question, does it need reform or abolishment? I interviewed a bunch of people, you know, who are sort of… have been participants in the process, and there were sort of three points of view. One was, there was a group of people that said it should be abolished because no good has ever come of it. 01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:56.000 Philip Joyce: And what they meant was, all the things that have been done through reconciliation have added to the deficit. So these… that's the deficit hawk point of view. 01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:51.000 ED DeSeve: That's. 01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:06.000 Philip Joyce: There's a second point of view that basically said, yeah, but nothing at all would have happened without it, and they are pointing to all of the things that they think are sort of positive things. 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:16.000 Philip Joyce: where if you had needed a supermajority, they wouldn't have passed. And then there was a third group of sort of more tepid, maybe, deficit hawks that basically wanted to bring back. 01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:27.000 Philip Joyce: what was referred to as the Conrad Rule, and the Conrad Rule basically said you can use reconciliation, but you can only use it to reduce the deficit. You cannot use it to, um, to add to the deficit. 01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:40.000 Philip Joyce: So, you know, who knows? I think the thing that everybody knows, and I think it's sort of the, you know, the basis of this question, is that reconciliation has become the most important. 01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:59.000 Philip Joyce: not only the most important part of the budget process, but the only way to get major legislation through the Congress, and this goes back to Roy's point about how budgeting should not dominate other processes. The reconciliation process is now the dominant lawmaking, uh. 01:02:59.000 --> 01:03:03.000 Philip Joyce: process, and there really is something wrong with that, I think. 01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:05.000 Robert Shea: Hmm. 01:03:04.000 --> 01:03:18.000 Doug Criscitello: Could I chime in, uh, Christello? Uh, yeah, just, just wanted to add a bit of, uh, process info on reconciliation. So, reconciliation is tied to the budget, the annual budget resolution. 01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:08.000 Robert Shea: Of course. 01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:27.000 Doug Criscitello: Um, and the budget resolution can include reconciliation instructions for up to, um… 01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:36.000 Doug Criscitello: you know, 3 separate categories, spending, revenues, and the debt limit. So, theoretically, there could be 3 reconciliation bills. 01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:42.000 Doug Criscitello: in a given year. I mean, typically there's one, um, but… 01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:50.000 Doug Criscitello: According to current law, the 74 Budget Act in particular, I think there could only be one reconciliation bill. 01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:55.000 Doug Criscitello: Either a consolidated bill, or one specifically on… on spending. 01:03:57.000 --> 01:03:59.000 Robert Shea: Got it. Thanks, Doug. 01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:01.000 Doug Criscitello: Yeah. 01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:02.000 Robert Shea: So these next two, um, are… 01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:07.000 Robert Shea: Uh, close… near and dear to my heart, John Giorgis asks about. 01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:13.000 Robert Shea: Whether there was thought giving to stronger language regarding performance-based budgets. 01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:15.000 Robert Shea: Um, and Dana… 01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:19.000 Robert Shea: Um, shared some of her experience. 01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:25.000 Robert Shea: Uh, having worked at 3 agencies over 20 years, she looks much younger. Um… 01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:28.000 Robert Shea: Uh, about, you know. 01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:35.000 Robert Shea: The, the budget structure, like having big umbrella budget lines. 01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:42.000 Robert Shea: Um, in some cases, and much more narrow budget accounts in others. 01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:47.000 Robert Shea: What… what… what… um, Dana, I don't know if you want to expand on that, but… 01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:53.000 Robert Shea: Talk about more about where you see this going from a performance-based budgeting perspective. 01:04:54.000 --> 01:04:57.000 Robert Shea: Whoever wants to take that. 01:04:57.000 --> 01:04:59.000 Robert Shea: Steve, I think… 01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:01.000 Steve Redburn: I… I could, uh, I could… 01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:03.000 Steve Redburn: Start, um… 01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:12.000 Steve Redburn: It's important to remember that Congress gave the executive a legislative framework which has been very useful for strategic planning. 01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:18.000 Steve Redburn: For performance, um, developing performance measures and reporting those on a regular basis. 01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:24.000 Steve Redburn: And a whole set of integrated routines, including risk, uh, enterprise risk assessment and others. 01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:36.000 Steve Redburn: The Foundations of Evidence-Based Policy Act augmented that with the requirement that agencies develop a learning agenda that identifies the key questions that need to be answered in order to inform. 01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:40.000 Steve Redburn: policy and budget choices. And all of that was… 01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:45.000 Steve Redburn: Um, a base on which a lot of experience, uh, and um… 01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:52.000 Steve Redburn: Muscle memory developed over the last 3 or 4 carrying over from one administration to another until. 01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:00.000 Steve Redburn: Of course, this year. And a lot of those routines are still working in the back… background, I have a feeling, and we'll see some strategic plans and. 01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:07.000 Steve Redburn: other evidence of that soon, I hope. But in any case, they can be revived, and there's a lot of experience. 01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:15.000 Steve Redburn: The problem has been for many of us that it's not closely linked to the budget decision-making process, the development of the budget and the executive branch. 01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:21.000 Steve Redburn: Is sometimes disconnected to all of that, uh, work, uh, and so bringing that together. 01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:32.000 Steve Redburn: is part of the challenge here. Again, the portfolio budgeting approach, which is something the executive can do on its own, although it would be good to see others, Congress involved as well. 01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:39.000 Steve Redburn: Um, is one way to do that, uh, to be more strategic and to, especially to address. 01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:46.000 Steve Redburn: Problem is the cut across programs and cut across agency jurisdictions and to, uh, to work. 01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:52.000 Steve Redburn: On the, on the biggest issues, uh, spend more energy on those than what we currently work on. 01:06:53.000 --> 01:06:56.000 Steve Redburn: So that's… that's a start, I hope. 01:06:56.000 --> 01:06:58.000 Robert Shea: Right. 01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:00.000 Robert Shea: Um… 01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:06.000 Robert Shea: John, again, asks about transparency, and about standardizing. 01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:10.000 Robert Shea: Uh, appropriations approaches across government. 01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:16.000 Robert Shea: Do you… anybody have any thoughts about a consistent accounting structure? 01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:18.000 Robert Shea: Appropriation structure. 01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:22.000 Robert Shea: Among our authors. 01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:30.000 Steve Redburn: I have a lot of thoughts about appropriations, and I… can I just use one example, uh, to grade my thinking? 01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:30.000 Robert Shea: Yeah. 01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:39.000 Steve Redburn: This is, uh, I'm holding up the, uh, Department of Defense, they misspelled it, uh, this is the Canadian Department of Defense, they spell it with a C instead of an S, but… 01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:42.000 Steve Redburn: That's their… that's their annual budget. 01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:44.000 Steve Redburn: On this page. 01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:47.000 Robert Shea: I didn't… I never found you to be parochial, Steve, but go ahead, go ahead. 01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:48.000 Steve Redburn: Oh, okay. Um… 01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:59.000 Steve Redburn: Whereas we have two massive bills and accompanying reports, hundreds and hundreds of pages, that, when they're enacted, govern how the Department of Defense administers, executes its budget every year. 01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:02.000 Steve Redburn: And much of that is designed to make sure that. 01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:08.000 Steve Redburn: Uh, organized constituencies that fund people's campaigns, uh, get… 01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:14.000 Steve Redburn: Get their projects in the budget, and a lot of it goes to particular districts or states. 01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:16.000 Steve Redburn: Um, and so… 01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:19.000 Steve Redburn: That whole approach, I think, perhaps… 01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:28.000 Steve Redburn: is obsolete and may fall of its own weight someday. If not, in the meantime, we're really hamstrung as a country. 01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:38.000 Steve Redburn: Because people can't act strategically, they can't be agile, they can't deal with the crises that we're going to face, the shocks we're going to face down the road. 01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:43.000 Steve Redburn: With this kind of approach to writing budgets, so we need to change that. 01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:45.000 Steve Redburn: And people don't understand it. 01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:49.000 Robert Shea: Anyone else on the transfers? 01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:51.000 Roy Meyers: I'd like to make a comment about our general approach. 01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:53.000 Robert Shea: Yep. 01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:57.000 Roy Meyers: Which right now is to not get into the weeds about questions like. 01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:01.000 Roy Meyers: What should be the standard form of an appropriations? 01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:07.000 Roy Meyers: uh, language, you know, S and E or something different. Those are all… that's an important question. 01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:11.000 Roy Meyers: And many of us had spent many years dealing with them. 01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:16.000 Roy Meyers: But I think our approach is quite different, is to say, we need to step back. 01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:19.000 Roy Meyers: And ask ourselves. 01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:21.000 Roy Meyers: What's wrong with, uh… 01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:26.000 Roy Meyers: Whole federal budget process compared to what people should want from it. 01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:32.000 Roy Meyers: Set out some basic principles, and then start winnowing out. 01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:38.000 Roy Meyers: Some bad ideas and focusing on some good ones, whether they're radical or incremental. 01:09:38.000 --> 01:09:42.000 Roy Meyers: And put them together into a cohesive plan. 01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:49.000 Roy Meyers: That we hope particularly younger senators and representatives might consider. 01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:53.000 Roy Meyers: As the new system that they would be using through their careers. 01:09:55.000 --> 01:09:58.000 Robert Shea: Right? Um… 01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:02.000 Roy Meyers: And in that regard, one of the things we want to do is try and find. 01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:08.000 Roy Meyers: How we can best invite others who have ideas about general principles and about specifics. 01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:11.000 Roy Meyers: To join us in developing a. 01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:18.000 Roy Meyers: Plan that does have a real good prospect of being taken seriously. 01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:24.000 Robert Shea: So, Michael Jacobson's question is sort of along those lines. 01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:30.000 Robert Shea: He cynically doesn't think the current political environment is one in which we can make some significant reforms. 01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:33.000 Robert Shea: Um, so… 01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:38.000 Robert Shea: What is the time frame, he asks. And by the way, anybody, if I screw up your question. 01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:44.000 Robert Shea: Uh, please raise your hand and interrupt. Um, but what's the expected. 01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:50.000 Robert Shea: Time frame for the reforms, what would need to… and then what do you think would need to change? 01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:53.000 Robert Shea: to get traction. One thing I will say… 01:10:53.000 --> 01:10:57.000 Robert Shea: is that perform for results is just one of. 01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:04.000 Robert Shea: Uh, a number of organizations that have been stood up to think about what comes next. 01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:07.000 Robert Shea: Um, and the… the panel… 01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:16.000 Robert Shea: We'll spend the next year collaborating with Democrats and Republicans in Congress who are explicitly. 01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:18.000 Robert Shea: Trying to chart an agenda. 01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:21.000 Robert Shea: That lays out what comes next. 01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:23.000 Robert Shea: Um, this is… 01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:26.000 ED DeSeve: Robert, let me volunteer to answer this question, or at least try to answer the question. 01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:28.000 Robert Shea: Absolutely, yeah, that'd be great. 01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:33.000 ED DeSeve: We know that there are electoral cycles out there, and during the electoral cycles. 01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:38.000 ED DeSeve: People will stake out positions for the future, and we'd like to. 01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:43.000 ED DeSeve: Depending on what the cycle is, depending on what the result is. 01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:45.000 ED DeSeve: Have a template for people. 01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:52.000 ED DeSeve: within the next 12 months, and I realize that goes beyond the current midterm elections. 01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:58.000 ED DeSeve: On the one hand, on the other hand, um, folks don't take… most of them, there's some temporary. 01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:03.000 ED DeSeve: Um, elections filling voids, but most of them don't take office until. 01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:08.000 ED DeSeve: Um, almost 2 years from now, just about 2 years from now. 01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:14.000 ED DeSeve: So, the answer is, we'd love to have whoever the new congressman, Republican or Democrat. 01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:19.000 ED DeSeve: look at the ideas early in the term of the next Congress. 01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:26.000 ED DeSeve: Understanding that it may be necessary for an executive to join. 01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:31.000 ED DeSeve: In that conversation, and there may be a reluctance of the current administration. 01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:36.000 ED DeSeve: To do so. We don't know that for one way or another. But the answer is. 01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:39.000 ED DeSeve: Roughly a year from now. 01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:45.000 ED DeSeve: Um, to have something ready to be reviewed by the incoming Congress. 01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:51.000 ED DeSeve: and hopefully join to the executive. It may be that we have to wait another 2 years. 01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:53.000 ED DeSeve: For the executive. 01:12:53.000 --> 01:13:02.000 ED DeSeve: God willing, and the Creek don't rise, we're not going anywhere. At 80 years old, you can't say that all the time. 01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:07.000 ED DeSeve: But it's not our intention to go anywhere, it's our attention to till this. 01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:13.000 ED DeSeve: Field until something happens one way or another, over the next several years. 01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:19.000 ED DeSeve: And I… that's my answer. I'd invite any of our, um, any of the additional. 01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:24.000 ED DeSeve: members of the Budget Policy Working Group to add theirs, but that's my… that's my feeling. 01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:31.000 Philip Joyce: I would only add that it, you know, it took us a full 50 years to fully screw this up. 01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:36.000 Philip Joyce: And, you know, and, you know, and… and I think with any… 01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:42.000 Philip Joyce: Any kind of set of reform ideas, particularly something if you want to call it radical. 01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:53.000 Philip Joyce: I think you have to spend some time figuring out what you want to do, and you never know when the moon and the stars are going to align, but you have to have something ready when the moon and the stars do align. 01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:59.000 ED DeSeve: And someone reminds me, I forget who it was, maybe you, Phil, that it was. 01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:09.000 ED DeSeve: the Nixon problems with Watergate that triggered one set of responsibilities, and then there was a second event, I'm forgetting what it was. 01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:14.000 ED DeSeve: that triggered additional changes. So there may be an external event. 01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:19.000 ED DeSeve: That we can use as a, uh, as a catalyst for what we're trying to do as well. 01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:26.000 Robert Shea: So, what… what will it take to… Jason, prehedge? 01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:31.000 Robert Shea: I hope I pronounced that right, asks about what it would take to sustain attention here. 01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:36.000 Robert Shea: What… what… what in the past… pardon? Yeah. 01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:36.000 ED DeSeve: Damned if I know. 01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:45.000 ED DeSeve: Damn if I know, Robert, we're gonna do our best to, um, work with people, remind people, and again, there's a spirit for this. 01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:53.000 ED DeSeve: There are… Mr. Arrington, I know, had a series of hearings, uh, fundamentally about this question. 01:14:53.000 --> 01:15:00.000 ED DeSeve: Um, and I believe that the minority in the House have put a bill in place. 01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:07.000 ED DeSeve: So, there's interest, and now the question is, can we turn it from lip service into at least passionate lip service? 01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:09.000 ED DeSeve: And moving forward with it. 01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:17.000 Jason Freihage: But if I can add one thing, the next part of my question was, when we talk about budget process improvements among us budgeteers. 01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:26.000 Jason Freihage: there can definitely be some eyes glazing over for non-budget people, right? So, can some of these reform ideas at the higher level, like Roy's. 01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:34.000 Jason Freihage: be packaged with case studies about actual impacts to programs not functioning anymore, economic impacts. I mean. 01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:39.000 Jason Freihage: I know there's a lot of talk about process improvement, but can the budget folks aren't always. 01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:46.000 Jason Freihage: you know, the most extroverted. Are there ways we can tell this story better so that it relates to impacts on the ground closer? 01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:49.000 ED DeSeve: Sounds like a good idea to me. 01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:53.000 Robert Shea: Yeah, although it's been tried, you know, the Volk… the Volcker… 01:15:53.000 --> 01:16:01.000 Robert Shea: Foundation, under David Walker's leadership, um, made significant efforts to do this. There have been. 01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:05.000 Robert Shea: various, uh, public… 01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:07.000 Robert Shea: affairs efforts. 01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:12.000 Robert Shea: Um, doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to be tried. 01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:15.000 Robert Shea: Um, but we haven't obviously figured that out yet. 01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:20.000 Robert Shea: Um, I think we're out of questions in the chat. 01:16:19.000 --> 01:16:27.000 ED DeSeve: Okay, um, we'll record any other comments in the chat. It's after 3 o'clock, so we're a little earlier than we. 01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:22.000 Robert Shea: Um, yeah. 01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:32.000 ED DeSeve: Usually are. And anything you want to tell us, we'll receive. 01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:38.000 ED DeSeve: We'll respond to you, and we'll archive the material in a way that it can be. 01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:43.000 ED DeSeve: Access by a number of people, probably put it in a… in some kind of a… 01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:50.000 ED DeSeve: subset of the Reform for Results website. I want to thank everyone who's joined us today. 01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:55.000 ED DeSeve: Um, and it's been terrific, but it is only the beginning of the beginning. 01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:02.000 ED DeSeve: It's not even the end of the beginning, to paraphrase Winston Churchill. So, thanks for today. 01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:07.000 ED DeSeve: Robert, thank you for inviting us, and Robert, I turn it back to you to say goodbye. 01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:14.000 Robert Shea: Yeah, thank you very… thank you very much to the authors, to Ed, for… for prompting us to put this together. 01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:21.000 Robert Shea: Um, since we have such an overwhelming response, we've got… our next meeting is February 26th in the afternoon. 01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:25.000 Robert Shea: It'll feature a number of folks who've been thinking about. 01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:28.000 Robert Shea: Uh, what comes next, including from the Congress. 01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:32.000 Robert Shea: So, I hope you'll join that conversation. 01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:37.000 Robert Shea: So with that, have a great… have a great afternoon, everybody. 01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:35.000 ED DeSeve: I can hardly wait. Hardly wait, Robert. 01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:40.000 Doug Criscitello: Great. Thanks, Robert. 01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:39.000 ED DeSeve: Thanks. 01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:40.000 Robert Shea: Take care. Yep. 01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:43.000 Philip Joyce: Thanks.