Roth: Should president pay extortion for budget?

Big word, huh? Extortion.

Defined as: the act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.

I once heard that a person would never pay just one extortion payment because if you ever do, then you have opened yourself up to endless demands and never-ending extortion forever. If you are willing to pay, then they will always come back for more.

The same dilemma may be playing out in the unlikeliest of places: the halls of the U.S. Congress.

I’m sure some of you read that and think perhaps that it is not all that “unlikely.” Some might even think it’s “politics as usual” or “horse trading,” but I wonder if it hasn’t become much worse than those lesser euphemisms suggest.

Here is what I mean: News accounts out of Washington, D.C., paint a grim picture of the back and forth between political parties over the 2011 budget and a series of temporary budgets.

Extensions: A short-term spending measure expires on April 8, after a few tentative agreements over the last two months have bought all sides some time. A partial government shutdown looms without further action by Congress by then. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told reporters recently that time is up and there will be no more temporary budget measures without the larger agreement sought by his party.

Beyond the immediate disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over how much to cut and from where, the dispute seems to be spilling over into nonbudgetary issues. And I think that may lead to a larger problem: Congress using the budget process to exact legislative gains against other branches of government.

Certain congressional leaders are insisting on limits upon another branch of our U.S. government in exchange for an agreement to not force a shutdown of our federal government: parks, ports, airports, law enforcement agencies, border security, etc.

But at what cost?

Should our environment suffer? Should our public health worsen? Should women’s constitutional rights and reproductive freedoms be curtailed? Should all of this occur in the context of a “budget agreement.”

While the Senate leaders, House leaders and the administration engage in the back and forth, here are a few of the policy “gains” being discussed.

Under the House-passed measure, Republicans are pushing limits upon the Environmental Protection Agency to limit its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, although the U.S. Supreme Court recently charged the Environmental Protection Agency with this responsibility. In addition, the House version of a budget would also block the EPA from issuing or enforcing new regulations on the emission of mercury from cement factories, pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, surface coal mining and runoff into Florida waters.

Other elements of the House-passed bill would stop the administration from issuing new regulations on for-profit private schools, which have been accused of bilking millions of dollars in heavy-interest tuitions and loans, from unsuspecting students for “college degrees” of marginal and often unaccredited value. The House “budget” would also block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules on the Internet that are opposed by Verizon and other Internet service providers, even though these rules are highly regarded as consumer-friendly.

So, is this typical “sausage making,” as the legislative process is often described, or is it something bigger: a new game of high-stakes extortion where one branch of government exerts undue exaction of policy gains in exchange for keeping our government open?

Should the president forever accept a diminution of the executive branch’s presidential powers just to get a budget? And if so, isn’t it likely that next year’s budget will be more of the same, if not worse. It seems to me that once you are over the barrel, you’ve lost your footing forever.

I don’t often quote former President George W. Bush, but he was philosophically consistent throughout his presidency about protecting the role of the executive branch, as evident when he said: “I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well.”

It is my hope that President Barack Obama heeds this advice to protect the important role of the executive branch and its policy responsibilities, and thereby force a debate on the budget terms alone.

Don’t pay extortion, Mr. President, even if it means shutting down the process to clean it up.

Jim Roth, a former Oklahoma corporation commissioner, is an attorney with Phillips Murrah P.C. in Oklahoma City, where his practice focuses on clean, green energy for Oklahoma.