The Power of Symbolism
The State of the Union and the budget process converge.
Biden’s State of the Union address is set for March 7th. This, as I’m sure readers know, is in between the two funding deadlines from the previous continuing resolution. In other words, he may be giving the address during a partial shutdown. A rather uncomfortable look for American credibility.
There is a solid chance that a shutdown will be averted just in time, at least for that first deadline (March 1st). They could pass yet another CR, but that wouldn’t leave much of a window before mandatory cuts (under the Fiscal Responsibility Act), come April. A full-year CR would avoid both cuts and a shutdown, but would represent a forceful kick of the can down the road.
The State of the Union is politically important. It provides an exclusive platform for Presidents to lay out their agenda before an international audience, and many policy-watchers the world over view it as a quick barometer of the Executive branch’s status and intentions. Presidents love to give it, since they can frame the narrative however they wish.
Both the President’s budget submission and the SOTU are essentially symbolic. They are political signals concerning Executive priorities, not substantive policy directives.
This confluence between budgeting and the SOTU has led GOP lawmakers to use the fact that the address is at the invitation of Congress as political leverage. Scott Perry (PA) has suggested disinviting the President over border security, but more à propos is the SUBMIT IT Act, sponsored by Rep. Buddy Carter (GA) and Sen. Joni Ernst (IA). This bill would require the President to submit their budget and national security strategy before being invited to deliver the SOTU.
This may seem frivolous, but it genuinely taps into the the signaling mechanisms at work in the interplay between Congress, the public, and the White House. It would be truly embarrassing for a President to be barred from giving the address as a result of their own tardiness in providing strategies that are themselves largely non-binding. No President wants American federal dysfunction revolving around themselves.
Kurt Couchman of AFP brought this to my attention with an op-ed early this month about the issue. Leveraging the SOTU actually does seem like effective, if not fully sufficient, pressure on the Executive role in overall federal budgeting dysfunction.
Couchman writes:
Presidents absolutely love to give the State of the Union address. It’s a nationally televised speech with millions watching before a joint session of Congress with cabinet members and justices of the Supreme Court attending where the president can push his agenda and feel extra special.
…
It makes sense for presidents to submit budget and security proposals before giving the State of the Union speech. If the president proposes outlandish policies or ignores important priorities, members of Congress can respond with solid evidence of misplaced presidential priorities. This would improve accountability for the executive branch and make presidents more responsible with their requests to Congress.
This approach is standard in most states. Governors’ state of the state addresses usually happen after or when they deliver their budget proposals. It’s part of the reason why state budgeting is healthier than federal budgeting.
Yes. And for the record, it’s worth looking into the gulf that exists between state budgeting and federal budgeting. A lot of that is due to federal transfers, but the process itself is far more functional in most states. I encourage readers to take in Kurt’s full piece in the Daily Caller (and his volumes of other writing, obviously).