It seems that what we now consider corrupt, the doling out of public resources and assets to special interests and supporters, was actually the norm until some time after the Second World War, when the responsibilities of public officials, especially our Representative in Congress, to actually serve the public interest were re-enforced by a series of civil rights laws and accountability measures.

So, in a sense, we're not far removed from the establishment of popular rule and the realization of public servants who actually serve the public. Which probably accounts, in large part, for the persistence of the old pattern of Congress allocating funds on the basis of political considerations and their continued inability to get annual appropriations done on time.

Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., writing in the National Journal (subscription) provides a pretty good summary of how the budgetary kerfuffle affects one Agency, the Veterans Administration, whose responsibilities are definitely not decreasing (1.5 million more veterans since 2001) and not likely to end any time soon.

However, as is so often the case, the author's focus is just slightly off, as the title suggests.

Veterans Ask for an Advance

The Veterans are entitled. More than that, they've earned the health care with service that's already completed, over and done with. Expecting to be recompensed in a timely manner is not "asking" for an "advance."

Veterans benefits are one of the most popular causes in Congress. But Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics are routinely buffeted by the annual uncertainties of the increasingly dysfunctional budget process on Capitol Hill.

Nor is the budget process "dysfunctional." What's dysfunctional is a House of Representatives that can't seem to pay the nation's bills on time (up to 142 days past the start of the fiscal year). So, now they're considering a new gimmick--arguing about the nickles and dimes a year ahead of time in what's being referred to as an advance-appropriations process.

Advance appropriations began in 1967 as a way to insulate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from congressional criticism of its programming. Congress slowly added other appropriations in ensuing years; as late as 1996, however, the total sum was less than $3 billion. Then appropriators seized on the mechanism as a way to bypass budget caps. Over the next five years, advances increased 800 percent. For fiscal 2001, budgeteers stepped in to limit advances being slipped into the budget to $23.5 billion. That figure is expected to hit $28.9 billion in fiscal 2009. If the veterans groups manage to move most VA health care accounts into the advance-appropriations process, the total would more than double, to approximately $70 billion a year.

What's interesting to me here is that veterans health care is costing about $30 billion a year, about what is being spent on the mayhem in Iraq every two months, but, considering that total national expenditures for health care are now up to $2 trillion, that's just a drop in the bucket. And yet, it suggests that the Congress isn't anywhere near being capable of funding a universal health care system. Or maybe it's just being resistant to giving up the old patterns of reward and punishment.

It sure is inefficient.

To keep paychecks coming for nurses and doctors, VA administrators routinely put off buying equipment, doing maintenance, restocking inventories, and even hiring staff until later in the year. When appropriations finally do arrive, they often trigger a scramble to cover backed-up needs and to spend money that, thanks to congressional generosity, is well in excess of what the VA had planned for. Such a cycle of famine and feast encourages inefficiency, hampers planning, and can make hiring in certain medical specialties almost impossible.

It doesn't "encourage" inefficiency; it demands it. When you can't plan ahead and have to hurry to catch up, it's inevitable that a lot of time and energy are wasted. And it's not an accident.

The House and Senate Budget committees are likely to be the first line of resistance. "We appropriate annually for a reason," a staffer said. "We set priorities, and we make programs compete against each other annually. They would like not to have to compete."

Somebody needs to explain the difference between a competition and a contest to these people. People aiming for a common goal and vying to see who gets there first are competing. People employing different skills to best each other are in a contest where "winning" has nothing to do with achieving the common good. The assertion that "we make programs compete against each other" is a clear sign that faulty logic is at work here. But then, the false attribution of agency is a common problem. Just this week, our esteemed Secretary of State claimed that houses are hurting talks in the Mideast. When people are confused about who's doing what to whom, it's very unlikely that whatever they do is going to be effective.

Perhaps that should be one of the main criteria in the upcoming elections (all of the House)--that the candidates we select know the difference between who's doing and who's being done to, who selects and who serves.

Public service is not everyone's cup of tea. But those who don't like to serve, should not volunteer for public office. And, if there's any doubt, we shouldn't elect them.