27 March 2009 
At Tuesday evening’s press conference, Jake Tapper, Senior White House Correspondent at ABC News, asked the President:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill Senate Democrats are writing a budget and, according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus; they’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap and trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures. I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap and trade?
This question makes no sense.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) is doing what every budget committee chairman does at this time of year: he is drafting the Senate budget resolution, and he is getting his committee to “mark it up” — amend and vote on it. His House counterpart, Chairman John Spratt (D-SC), is doing the same in the House.
A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution. When it has passed the House and Senate in identical form, it takes effect and binds House and Senate action throughout the year.
A concurrent resolution never goes to the President for a signature or veto. It is a tool the Congress uses to manage itself. Yes, the concurrent resolution sometimes uses the substance of the President’s budget proposal as a starting point, and so Mr. Tapper’s substantive point that Senate Democrats appear to be ignoring some of the President’s top priorities is an important one.
But asking the President whether he would “sign a budget” has no meaning. The President never faces that choice. Later in the year, he may face various bills that do or don’t contain his spending and tax priorities, but those aren’t “a budget,” and they’re not what House and Senate Democrats are working on now.
Mr. Tapper pressed his question in a follow-up:
Q: So is that a “yes,” sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions?
Everyone makes mistakes, but he had all day to prepare this question. To his credit, the President did not make the same mistake as Mr. Tapper.
The White House press corps holds the President to an extremely high standard, and hammers him if he misspeaks. I hope that similarly rigorous treatment, applied to the press corps, can elevate our public policy debate.
I think it's great that "the people" (if such applies to a former White House official
) respectfully hold reporters' feet to the fire. That's why I blog, twitter, and post my Q's every day online. Journalists have an important role and we need to live up to the task at hand. I'll keep coming by, please feel free to email me any particularly interesting blog posts. Have a great weekend to you and your readers!
Cheers, Jake
I may have been overly colloquial in my question. Of course, you're right, Presidents don't literally "sign" budget resolutions, of course, which is what Congress is currently debating, though they do sign budget reconciliations. What I meant was would he be willing to sign off, support, get behind a budget resolution that doesn't include those provisions since what Congress passes in the form of a resolution will likely say much about the budget reconciliation he ultimately signs. The larger issue of course, is that presidents have to make choices, which is what he seemed to be signaling he was willing to do.
Thanks, Jake
I love this. Respectful discussion. What a concept!
BTW, I have no idea what Jake Tapper's own political stance is. Isn't that refreshing. I tell everyone—with obvious overstatement—that Jake Tapper is the last professional reporter left in Washington…
Thanks for the comment, Jake. The premise of your question was excellent — the Congress is doing their best to set aside certain major components of the President's budget proposal, and I compliment you for pushing the President on this tension. I found that some of the most difficult press questions to answer were when my President's own party in the Congressional majority was shafting his agenda. As a WH staffer one is tempted to try to gloss that tension over, but a policy loss is a loss no matter who does it to your boss' agenda. And major elements of the President's budget proposal are at risk from his own party.
Thanks for joining the discussion here, and I hope you'll return. I will do my best to hold your colleagues in the White House press corps to a similar standard of rigor that y'all hold the President and his team.
For other readers, a former White House colleague told me yesterday that Jake is tough but fair — admirable qualities in a White House correspondent.