The long term keeps getting shorter
The language to describe long-term and short-term budgets in the US is confusing
How long is the long term?Skip to next paragraph
Donald B. Marron is director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. He previously served as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and as acting director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
When discussing the U.S. budget, it’s usually something between 5 years and 75 years. At least it used to be.
But the ongoing battle over this year’s funding has begun to warp the language. See, for example, this quote from a recent UPI story about efforts to strike a deal to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year:
WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) — U.S. Vice President Joe Biden vowed Thursday the “conversation will continue” after meeting with congressional leaders on a long-term budget deal.
President Barack Obama sent Biden, Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and White House Chief of Staff William Daley to Capitol Hill Thursday to work out a deal for a long-term budget plan, 154 days after the government began operating without one, CNN reported.
Things are now so bad that funding the government through the end of September counts as long-term budgeting. Egads.
I suppose that’s true if your benchmark is this week’s deal funding the government for just two weeks. But calling that deal ”short-term” and a deal through September “long-term” seems an insult to the language.
So, readers, any better naming ideas? “Two-week” and “Six-month”? “Really short-term” and “Short-term”?
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.