Introduced on July 10, 2024, by Representatives Ben Cline and Ralph Norman, H.R. 8979 was promptly referred to the House Committee on the Budget. Its mission: to ensure that our budget baselines—those projections that determine future fiscal spending—are firmly grounded in current law and the ongoing levels of discretionary appropriations. This effort is to strip away any embellishments or inflation adjustments that could distort fiscal outlooks.
At the heart of the bill lies a modification to Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This section spells out how baseline budget projections should be made. The “No Bias in the Baseline Act” proposes several critical changes: 1. **Base Projection Alignment:** The bill mandates that all projections should be based strictly on current laws, assuming that the conditions and appropriation levels of the current year will continue unchanged into the future. This stipulation strips away any subjective future adjustments. 2. **Elimination of Inflation Adjustments:** One notable change is the removal of adjustments for inflation or any other factors. Traditionally, budget projections have accounted for inflation, anticipating that the cost of goods and services would rise. The proposed legislation seeks to keep projections static, reflecting only the present financial landscape.
3. **Simplified Calculation of Direct Spending and Receipts:** The bill clarifies that any laws that create direct spending or receipts (like social security or tax laws) should be assumed to operate exactly as specified, without speculative predictions on future changes.
4. **Exclusion of Emergency and Supplemental Appropriations:** When calculating the baseline, emergency appropriations or supplemental laws—which often respond to crises or unforeseen circumstances—will not be factored in. This change ensures that such temporary measures do not skew long-term fiscal outlooks.
To harmonize these updates, conforming amendments are proposed for pivotal legal benchmarks, including the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Social Security Act. These changes are designed to ensure consistency across related fiscal statutes.
So why does this matter for the average citizen?
Budget baselines play a critical role in fiscal policy. When Congress and the President draft budgets and debate new spending programs or tax codes, they lean heavily on these baseline projections. If such projections are inflated or adjusted based on uncertain future events, there’s a risk of either overestimating revenues or underestimating spending needs, which can lead to fiscal mismanagement.
Supporters of H.R. 8979 argue that more straightforward projections will provide a clear and reliable foundation for federal budgeting. By avoiding speculative adjustments, the government can paint a more accurate picture of its financial health and make better-informed decisions. Clarity today means fewer surprises tomorrow.
However, critics might point to the bill’s exclusion of inflation and emergency appropriations as overly simplistic. They could argue that inflation is a real-world factor that affects every aspect of government spending and revenue. By ignoring it, there’s a risk that future budgets will become detached from economic realities, potentially necessitating abrupt corrections down the line.
In effect, H.R. 8979 wants to ground budget projections in the present without the conjectural adjustments. This could lead to more disciplined budgeting but might also oversimplify the inherently complicated nature of national finance.
Moving forward, the bill must navigate the complex legislative process. After consideration and possible amendments in the House Budget Committee, it will need to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate before reaching the President’s desk for signature.
Whether you view it as a beacon of fiscal responsibility or an overly rigid framework, H.R. 8979 undeniably influences how the government plans for the future. It brings to light the importance of accurate, unbiased projections in shaping our nation’s financial policies—and perhaps prompts a broader conversation about the best ways to balance predictability with pragmatic flexibility.
