On February 4, 2002, President George W. Bush submitted his $2.13 trillion budget proposal to the U.S. Congress. It's 426 pages long—and not exactly a page-turner. As the starting point for the federal budget process, it is necessarily short on details—which sometimes makes it hard to figure out what it will mean in practice. But anyone who has ever constructed a household budget, balanced a checkbook, or scrambled to make a tax payment knows enough about the relationship between getting and spending to form an opinion on the Bush budget proposal.

Looking at the big picture, the most striking feature of the Bush budget is that it is a deficit budget—one that calls for spending more money than the government expects to take in. After years of struggle to bring the federal deficit under control, the president is arguing that in a time of war and economic contraction, it is time to loosen the purse-strings. The Bush plan projects deficits in each of the next two fiscal years.

What does that mean? Is it the expense of the war on terrorism that's causing the red ink? Or is it the reduced revenue caused by the Bush tax cuts? This is an important question, because while it is not unusual to run short-term deficits in a time of national challenge, tax cuts tend to become permanent. Those who believe the Bush tax cuts go too far are worried that they undermine the ability of the government to fund essential services down the road. Bush and those who support the cuts say they will help the economy grow.

For those with an interest in understanding and possibly affecting the way the federal government spends its money, the weeks immediately following the president's submission are the time to gather information about what's in it, and how it's being received. By March or April, members of Congress will be getting down to the details: picking their battles and crafting their legislative approaches. The Senate Budget Committee Democratic Caucus offers a look at the timetable [1] for the 2003 budget.

Budget Close-Up

When it comes to programs affecting children and families, certain areas of the budget deserve a particularly close look:

• Welfare-to-work: since the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) legislation is up for reauthorization this year, the Bush budget proposal includes important information about the direction the president wants to take in this area. Bush is seeking to level-fund the central components of the program—the funds states receive to pay benefits to families on welfare, subsidize child care for parents returning to work from welfare, and provide other work supports. Level-funding does not include increases for inflation.
• Early childhood: a modest increase in Head Start funding—$130 million, to $6.7 billion—would keep enrollments about the same, covering increased salary and operating costs. The $25 million Early Learning Fund would be eliminated.
• Education: a tax credit to pay as much as $2,500 a year in private-school tuition or home-school costs for children whose public schools are considered to be failing under state standards is likely to generate lots of discussion. The credit is refundable, which means even low-income families who do not owe any federal taxes can receive the benefit as a cash payment. The president proposes a $1 billion increase in Title I, the primary federal spending program to improve high-poverty schools; and a $1 billion increase in special education funding. About 40 education programs are eliminated in the Bush budget, including funds for drop-out prevention, rural education and community technology centers.
• After-school: Bush proposes level funding the 21st Century Learning Centers program at $1 billion.
• Housing: The president is looking to increase by 34,000 the number of housing vouchers to subsidize rents for the poor, at a cost of $204 million; and adds $238 million to the HOME program which seeks to encourage home ownership among low and moderate-income families. He seeks to cut funds for rural housing programs and the public housing capital fund.
• Health care: A big dose of new money for bioterrorism protection—$4.3 billion—is responsible for much of the president's proposed 9 percent funding increase for the Department of Health and Human Services. Many programs dealing with prevention and direct patient services would be trimmed or level-funded, and hospitals would receive less in Medicaid reimbursement.

Fortunately, the Web has made it much easier for those of us who are usually contentedly "out of the loop" when it comes to the nitty-gritty of government to quickly get a grasp of the issues that most concern us. The budget [2] itself is available through the White House Web site. Both the Democratic [3] and Republican [4] members of the House Budget Committee provide summaries and analyses of the budget on their web sites. Spend 10 minutes at each of these sites for a primer on political perspective: each provides readable and interesting analysis of the Bush submission, equally accurate as to numbers, and completely different in every other regard.

In coming weeks, the Web sites of various organizations will begin to post their own analyses of the president's budget proposal. If there is an advocacy group that you trust on the issues that matter to you, check out their site and links. For groups that are active on behalf of children and families, check out the Connect for Kids Weekly for an ongoing analysis of the debate. Ensure Smart Spending: How You Can Help

If you're doing research with the goal of pushing for funding for a particular program or expenditure, don't stop with the "friendlies." Make sure you also check out the analysis and commentary of respected people on the other side of your issue. Knowing the opposition arguments will help you refine your own thinking.

Former Democratic Congressman Tom Downey, now of Downey McGrath, says to be effective, proponents need to "take a clear position on one issue—two at the most. There's a requirement that you do a little homework: find out if you have a member of Congress on the Senate Finance Committee, or the House Ways and Means Committee—that's pretty important."

Rachel Forward, a Republican staff member for the Senate Budget Committee who concentrates on income security and Social Security, says that areas where bipartisan support might exist for increased funding include child care for low-income working mothers, and food stamps. She warns that efforts to extend unemployment insurance benefits to part-time workers will face stiff opposition, however.

Try to get a sense of what's realistic. There may well be support for more spending in certain areas—members of Congress from both parties are likely to feel that if they must face the political fallout of passing a deficit budget, there should be something in it for them and for their districts. This is likely to create enormous pressure for more spending. But how much?

It's up to involved citizens to make sure that it's smart spending, spending that helps children and poor families and strengthens the economy while it also meets the president's praiseworthy goals of fighting terrorism and strengthening homeland security.