S-4372-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Sponsored by Roger Marshall (R-KS)
What it does
This bill would amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to change how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates the federal budget "baseline" — the projection used to measure the cost or savings of proposed legislation. Specifically, it would require the baseline to assume that discretionary spending stays flat at current dollar levels, and would eliminate the existing adjustment that accounts for inflation. It would also remove the assumption that certain expired or expiring programs are automatically renewed, and would exclude emergency and supplemental appropriations from the baseline calculation.
Who benefits
Fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who favor reducing federal spending, as a flat baseline makes spending increases appear larger and spending cuts appear smaller relative to the baseline. Taxpayers who prefer a lower-spending federal government, as the methodology change could make it procedurally easier to hold or reduce discretionary spending levels. Budget process reformers who argue the current inflation-adjusted baseline artificially inflates projected spending figures.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies and programs that rely on inflation-adjusted baseline projections to maintain real purchasing power — under a flat baseline, holding spending constant in dollar terms would appear as no cut, even though inflation erodes the real value of those dollars. Recipients of discretionary programs (e.g., education, housing, scientific research, veterans' services) who could see real-dollar reductions framed as flat funding. Budget analysts and CBO staff who would need to adapt scoring models. Lawmakers who use the current baseline to argue for maintaining program funding levels in real terms.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current inflation-adjusted baseline is a built-in bias that makes flat spending look like a "cut," giving the false impression that Congress is reducing programs when it is simply not increasing them. They contend that a true current-law baseline — holding spending at actual enacted levels with no automatic upward adjustments — is a more honest and transparent starting point for budget negotiations, and that it removes a structural thumb on the scale that has contributed to decades of baseline-driven spending growth.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing inflation adjustments from the baseline obscures the real-world impact of flat funding on federal programs, since the same number of dollars buys fewer goods and services each year. They contend that the current methodology accurately reflects what it costs to maintain existing service levels, and that stripping inflation adjustments is itself a form of bias — one that makes it easier to cut program capacity while claiming spending is unchanged, effectively misleading the public and policymakers about the true fiscal impact of budget decisions.