For the past several months Milo Public Affairs has been working with AmericaSpeaks on a project called Our Budget, Our Economy. The project brought together 3,500 people in 19 locations nationally to discuss the federal budget. Participants, who were recruited to reflect the demographics of the region, sat at tables of 10 and worked through a book of budget options that had been assembled by a bi-partisan group of budget experts. Milo’s role was to serve as a general consultant to the project, to be a liaison to the budget policy community in DC, and to engage federal policymakers in the process (we met with more than 60 Congressional offices on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol and worked with the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform).
One of the project’s challenges was a shared understanding of the issue itself. As with most issues, the federal budget isn’t one topic, but is rather a multidimensional issue that can reasonably described as many topics. The dimension in the forefront, the initial description of what the budget “is”, determines the range of possible responses to it.
The public and policymakers define the budget in at least three ways: as a question of math; as evidence of deeper issues; as a proxy for other concerns.
For some the budget is simply a matter of math – over the long term the amount of money the government takes in and the amount of money the government sends out must balance. Those who consider the budget as a math problem have clear ideas about what the government ought to spend money on and how much the government ought to raise, but their ultimate concern is with a simple balancing of the books. This is how AmericaSpeaks entered the budget debate, and it is the space occupied by groups like the Concord Coalition.
For others the budget is evidence of government over-reach or under-reach; the budget is a reflection of, or a manifestation of, a view of the role of the individual in society and the role of government in society (th CATO Institute falls into this category). For these advocates limiting the budget is necessary to limit government, or the budget needs to be expanded to expand government.
For most Americans “the budget” is a proxy for more generalized concerns about the economy and the future (an argument I expand on elsewhere). For this group “the budget” is less about economics or philosophy and more about generalized concerns that it is difficult to articulate.
Without a shared understanding of what the conversation is about it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation at all.
The challenge faced by AmericaSpeaks isn’t unique, of course. Most advocates dive into policy discussions assuming the dimension they see is the dimension others see as well – most of us mostly act as if our view of the world both makes sense and is shared by others. Such assumptions may not always be accurate, and almost always complicate efforts to create policy change.
