00:12:29 Michael Jacobson: "Walking on Sunshine" 00:15:30 Robert Shea: Reacted to ""Walking on Sunshine..." with ❤️ 00:27:58 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): We encourage participants to put your questions in the chat. 00:28:11 Robert Shea: Reacted to "We encourage partici..." with 👍 00:44:22 Don Eggert: As a practitioner (budget formulation for 10 years, currently a senior analyst in the executive branch) with an MPA from the LaFollette School at the University of Wisconsin, I really welcome this discussion. It strikes me that the recurring and extensive use of impoundment as a means of policy implementation is an existential threat to any budget process. I can't think of any prior era of unified government where impoundment was used so openly without consequences. I don't have any suggestions or answers, but I'd encourage folks to consider this line of inquiry as potentially a prerequisite for any reform to be effective. 00:45:43 Robert Shea: Here is the manifesto, everyone: https://drive.google.com/file/d/180wJfUflWQ8iZ4u5mC-WmnmqpESuFxHB/view 00:45:55 Kshemendra Paul: Here is an agile oversight report I wrote when I was AIG at DOE. The idea was to try to connect the budget, risk, and data processes, which we assessed as disconnected. Quite the opportunity to use data analytics to demonstrate how in their budgets, agencies are buying down risk. riskhttps://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/DOE-OIG-25-06.pdf 00:46:35 Virginia Huth: More of an observation/ sharing..... at the Elliott Prize event last night, someone with inside intelligence to OMB shared that they are playing fast and loose with the Anti-deficiency Act. My understanding is that there are shortfalls within agencies, and that OMB is putting a lid on it by saying that funding is available from other agency sources.... yet we all know transfers, outside an appropriations line, require Congressional action, and of course the books are closed on FY 2025. 00:46:44 Jeffrey Lubbers: A few questions about the Reconciliation process, which seems to be the only way to pass major legislation these days. (1) Are these bills limited to one per session? (2) The Senate Parliamentarian performed heroic work in limiting the scope of the last one, but how likely is it that she will circumvented (or replaced) next time? (3) Why aren’t the GOP leaders moving to do another one now? (4) Does it need reform (or abolishment?? 00:49:11 John Giorgis: In developing the 10 principles of an effective budgeting process, was any considering given to having stronger language regarding the budget being performance-based, outcome oriented, or results-focused? Perhaps Principal #8 nods in that direction? 00:50:58 Dana Fowler: I would be interested in a deep dive on the integration on performance with budget. In many places I have worked (3 agencies - 20 years)performance is an afterthought. Better linkages would allow for more effective conversations even in a broken system. I'd also recommend thinking about the drivers for how we got here. I have worked with budgets that have big 'umbrella' budget lines - and others managed to the very narrow project. This is entirely of Congress' making....I'd love to chat more with you all from my perspective. (DanaLRFowler@gmail.com) 00:51:42 Jillian McGuffey (NAPA): You can email me at jmcguffey@napawash.org! 00:54:24 Sarah Cunningham: Reacted to "As a practitioner (b..." with 💡 00:56:58 John Giorgis: Reacted to "I would be intereste…" with ❤️ 00:56:58 Craig Maher: How can the academy help with the refinement and promotion of this manifesto? Seems like we are at a point where researchers need to step up and offer guidance 00:57:13 Virginia Huth: I wish I could stay for the full session! I have to run to another appointment. Looking forward to more on this critical topic. We need both (1) better policy and process for budget and (2) better ability to ensure compliance, through transparency and accountability tools, whether via Congress or elsewhere. 00:57:53 Heidi Smith: Reacted to "How can the academy ..." with 👍🏼 01:00:35 John Giorgis: Has any consideration been given, under the principle that budgets should be “Transparent,” to standardizing appropriations approaches across government agencies? For example, some agencies have separate appropriations for “Salaries and Expenses,” whereas others include salaries and expenses as part of broader “overhead” accounts, whereas others include salaries and expenses as takedowns from program accounts - which certainly makes appropriations much more difficult for taxpayers to understand. 01:01:23 Bill Dauster: The Congressional Budget Process—https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117SPRT49524/pdf/CPRT-117SPRT49524.pdf 01:02:38 Michael Jacobson: I assume these ideas have to take the long view. I don't see any opening for these reform ideas, either small or radical, in the near term with the current political landscape. What is the imagined timeframe for these reforms and what would need to change for this to attain some traction by any part of any wing of either party? 01:02:41 Joseph Minarik: "Nothing good?" The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993? 01:03:02 Bill Dauster: Reacted to ""Nothing good?" The ..." with 👍 01:04:17 Bill Dauster: The Parliamentarian has also said that we can do reconciliation with a revised budget resolution, so it is potentially unlimited. 01:05:14 Jeffrey Lubbers: How about once-every-two-years appropriations? 01:05:22 John Giorgis: Reacted to "How about once-every…" with 👌 01:05:24 Don Eggert: 1993 budget deficit: $255 billion. 2025 budget deficit: $1.8 trillion. 01:05:46 Michael Jacobson: Reacted to "1993 budget deficit:..." with 😭 01:05:59 Michael Jacobson: Reacted to "How about once-every..." with 👍 01:06:22 Joseph Minarik: 2000 budget surplus: $236 billion. Collapse occurred under new management. 01:06:59 Jason Freihage: Wondering how to sustain attention and build support for reforms to the budget process. People's eyes can glaze over when we try to talk budget process improvement beyond us budgeteers. We've had many of the right tools in place, Congress and the Administration just work around the rules and tools. Do you think packaging reform ideas along with case studies about negative impacts of the broken process to bipartisan priorities and economic health might help sustain attention for cultural change, or will it take an emergency? 01:07:03 Don Eggert: @Jeffrey Lubbers I've wondered about that too. But the willingness to blow through deadlines wouldn't necessarily be fixed by that. They can blow through a biannual deadline just as easily as they ignore annual deadlines. 01:07:04 Doug Criscitello: Reacted to "How can the academy …" with 👍🏼 01:07:55 Don Eggert: Reacted to "Wondering how to sus..." with 👍 01:08:38 Philip Joyce: To Joe's point about the 1993 bill (and 1990, for that matter) the people who I was talking to who said that no good had come from reconciliation, they will focusing on 2000-forward. 01:09:37 James Douglas: There is a good chance that eliminating reconciliation would result in the Senate changing its rules so that taxing and spending measures would no longer be subject to the filibuster. 01:09:40 Derek Armstrong: Thank you for this discussion. Watching from Ottawa, and it's striking how we're struggling with many of the same issues: incorporating performance/outcomes, long-term view, and fiscal targets. I also have perspective on standardized accounting frameworks in a Canadian perspective. Incl. how it enables transparency. Derek.Armstrong@csps-efpc.gc.ca. I'll follow developments with keen interest. 01:09:54 Jeffrey Lubbers: Replying to "@Jeffrey Lubbers I'v..." True--but the one-year deadline has proven to be unworkable. Why not try it at least as an experiment? 01:10:04 Bill Dauster: Reacted to "There is a good chan..." with 👍 01:12:20 Doug Criscitello: Reacted to "The Parliamentarian …" with 👍 01:12:23 Christine Martell: apologies i need to run. Thank you and I look forward to topping it off with the recording. C~ 01:12:38 Katherine Willoughby: Agreed, Jason and Michael. The public, students (young people, especially), current decision makers need to be continually made aware of the malfeasance that batters the budget system and so disrupts policy and the democratic process, and ultimately fosters a decline in quality of life. Through some sort of podcast that continually and consistently addresses how the crisis of the day impacts our future as individuals, communities and governance of our nation and then hawk the various reforms discussed here and going forward. 01:13:14 Craig Maher: Reacted to "Agreed, Jason and Mi..." with 👍 01:13:22 Rachel Potter: Reacted to "True--but the one-ye..." with 👍🏻 01:13:47 Don Eggert: My home state of Wisconsin has a biennial budget, but then in the off year there's a "budget repair" or adjustment process. It could work, but the constraints of incrementalism are already pretty significant and the impact on budget responsiveness needs to be considered. As a formulator, I have had to work on issues over multiple successive annual budgets to develop lasting programmatic change. How would that be impacted if we only consider a clean budget every other year? 01:14:11 Sarah Cunningham: Reacted to "Agreed, Jason and Mi..." with 💡 01:14:44 Heidi Smith: Reacted to "Agreed, Jason and Mi..." with 👍🏼 01:15:07 Jeffrey Lubbers: Replying to "The Congressional Bu..." Thanks for the link. But 1,568 pages!? That itself shows we need reform. (Similar to the Tax Code.) 01:16:46 Don Eggert: Replying to "@Jeffrey Lubbers I'v..." Sorry, edited "annual" to "biennial". 01:16:52 Justin Simpkins: Reacted to "1993 budget deficit:..." with 😭 01:17:02 Matthew Dull: Thank you for this informative session. 01:17:13 John Bartle: Well done! 01:17:35 Alan Rhinesmith: Given the likely direction that the Supreme Court may be taking us (unitary executive, etc.), does that suggest that reform should focus on how the political process should constrain the executive — not by Congress but by opening up the electoral system to a more parliamentary like system with multiple parties competing in open primaries and with general elections serving as a runoff of the top primary vote getters regardless of party? This could serve to give the public a better means of expressing priorities which would in turn lay the foundation for budget process reform (as well as broader legislative branch reforms) . (See Danielle Allen “America is a Bear in a Trap) 01:17:39 Paul Anninos: Thanks very much for these insights!