Case Study #37: “Read My Lips”: U.S. Government’s Approach to FY 2011 Budget Planning Lacks Long-Term Vision and Analytic Sensibility

We have heard support for and protests to the $61 billion of cuts for the remainder of the government’s fiscal year. Have we ever thought about the people actually working on the budget? I am talking about the exacerbated, most likely, exhausted analysts of multi-versioned, multi-tabbed, macros-and-password enabled spreadsheets which objectively represent the decisionmaking aptitude of the officials we elected into office a few years ago. Jacob Lew from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided some high-level transparency behind the budget data, and the budget outlook published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was rather interesting, but we all know that the devil is in the details. What are really in Cells AA189 and AB189, and why do they change Sheet188 in Book79 when updated with different values above a certain threshold?

The budget exercise happening in our nation’s capitol lacks analytic sensibility. Unacceptable levels of bias, emotion and politicking have debased a process that should be as objective and analytical as possible.

I haven’t encountered a communication touchpoint that clearly explicates the breakdown of the $61 billion of cuts immediately after the bill was passed in the House of Representatives, and the size of the cuts in context of the FY 2011 proposed budget. Have you? Number-heavy articles should be supplemented with simple, data visualization elements which can be readily absorbed by the reader. The confluence of numeric information in these articles makes the budget cut analysis rather nebulous.

Where are the risk analyses and for each of the cuts that have been proposed? By cutting the State Department by $X billion, the following A, B and C impacts may ensue, and the mitigation plan will be D, E and F. By cutting the Department of Education by $X billion, the following impacts may ensue, and the mitigation plan will be G, H and I. Most everyone understands the politically emotional and strategic reasons for the proposed cuts, but the taxpaying public cares about the how the cuts may impact them. Since I am not a bug under the table, I am not sure if these risk analyses are being conducted. If they are, they should be effectively communicated so the cuts aren’t perceived to be haphazard and irresponsible.

Also, I believe there is a negativity and shame communicated about the government’s budget crisis. The issue of overlays exceeding revenues has been persistent for years. Rather than position the budget cutting activity as a necessary, “we needed this yesterday” punishment for years of recklessness, everyone involved in the process should coalesce on the long-term economic, social, technological and environmental benefits of the cuts. When a team can agree to a long-term view of an important action, they can better align on the near-term tactics to achieve that goal.

Our elected officials are working very hard to avoid a potential government shutdown next month, and there are some signs that the Republicans and Democrats are playing well in the sandbox. Let’s hope that the next few weeks on the Hill will be less about pre-election season politicking and more about the vision of where this great country will be in ten years.