“We Can't Afford It”

Advocacy Myths That Need to Die

Day 4: “We Can't Afford It”

Eventually, almost every advocacy effort involving federal benefits runs into the same four words:

“We can't afford it.”

Increase a benefit?

We can't afford it.

Expand eligibility?

We can't afford it.

Fix an inequity?

We can't afford it.

Correct something Congress screwed up twenty years ago?

Sorry.

Have you seen the deficit?

And sometimes that answer is legitimate.

Money is real.

Federal resources are not unlimited.

Advocates should care about what legislation costs.

But “we can't afford it” can also mean something very different:

“We have chosen to spend the money somewhere else.”

Those are not the same statement.

And advocates need to learn how to tell the difference.

Everything Has a Cost

Let's start with something that shouldn't be controversial.

Government programs cost money.

Benefits cost money.

Health care costs money.

Personnel cost money.

Administration costs money.

Expanding eligibility for a federal benefit generally means somebody has to determine how much that expansion is expected to cost.

Pretending cost doesn't matter is not responsible advocacy.

If you walk into a congressional office asking Congress to create or expand a federal benefit, you should expect someone to ask:

How much is this going to cost?

That's a reasonable question.

Advocates should have a reasonable answer.

But that should not be the only question.

“What Does It Cost?” Is Question One

Suppose legislation is projected to cost $5 billion over ten years.

That number sounds enormous.

Five billion dollars.

Most normal human beings will never interact with numbers like that outside of federal policy or Powerball fantasies.

But a cost estimate without context tells us surprisingly little.

How many people will receive the benefit?

What does that equal per beneficiary?

Is the cost immediate or spread over ten years?

Does the estimate assume participation will increase?

Does it include administrative expenses?

Does the policy generate savings somewhere else?

What assumptions were used?

And perhaps most importantly:

What problem is Congress spending that money to solve?

Cost matters.

So does value.

Read the CBO Score

The Congressional Budget Office plays an important role in this process.

CBO estimates how proposed legislation could affect federal spending and revenues based on the legislative language and assumptions available when the analysis is performed.

Advocates should read those estimates.

Actually read them.

Not just the headline number.

A CBO estimate is not a crystal ball.

It is an estimate based on assumptions.

Those assumptions can include expected participation, implementation dates, economic conditions, agency behavior, interactions with existing programs, and other factors.

Circumstances can also change between the period used to develop an estimate and the point when legislation is actually considered or implemented.

That doesn't make CBO useless.

Quite the opposite.

It makes understanding the assumptions important.

A number without methodology is just a number.

Mandatory and Discretionary Spending Are Not the Same Thing

Another problem in advocacy is that people often talk about the federal budget as though Congress has one enormous checking account.

It doesn't work that way.

Federal spending generally includes both mandatory and discretionary spending.

Mandatory spending is largely governed by existing laws that establish eligibility and payment requirements for programs.

Discretionary spending is generally provided through annual appropriations.

That distinction matters.

Creating or expanding an entitlement can have different budgetary implications from funding an annually appropriated program.

An advocate does not need to become a congressional budget analyst.

But if you are advocating for federal legislation involving billions of dollars, understanding the basic difference between mandatory and discretionary spending is useful.

Otherwise, someone can say:

“There's plenty of money in the VA budget.”

Maybe.

But is that money legally available for what you are proposing?

That's a different question.

And Then There Is PAYGO

Welcome to everyone's favorite acronym.

PAYGO: Pay-As-You-Go.

In simplified terms, PAYGO rules are intended to discourage legislation that increases certain mandatory spending or reduces revenues without accounting for the budgetary effect.

So Congress proposes a new benefit.

It costs money.

Then comes the question:

How are you paying for it?

This is where advocacy can get ugly.

Because one way to make the numbers work is to find an offset.

Increase revenue somewhere.

Reduce spending somewhere.

Increase a fee.

Narrow another benefit.

Change eligibility.

Delay implementation.

Reduce the cost of another program.

And suddenly the conversation isn't simply about whether Congress should help Group A.

It becomes:

Should Group B pay for it?

That deserves considerably more attention than it sometimes receives.

PAYGO Is a Rule, Not a Law of Nature

Advocates sometimes talk about PAYGO as though Moses brought it down from Mount Sinai on a stone tablet.

Sorry. Nothing Congress can do. PAYGO.

Congress created budget rules.

Congress can make legislative choices within those rules, change them, provide exceptions, use designated adjustments where applicable, or waive certain procedural requirements when the necessary support exists.

That doesn't mean doing so is always easy.

It doesn't mean fiscal rules should simply be ignored whenever we want something.

And it certainly doesn't mean deficits don't matter.

It means:

“PAYGO requires us to take this benefit from those veterans” should not automatically end the conversation.

Congress still made choices about the legislation.

Advocates are allowed to question those choices.

Follow the Offset

This should become automatic whenever you read legislation involving federal benefits.

You find the new benefit.

Great.

Now keep reading.

How is it funded?

Is there a new fee?

Is an existing fee increasing?

Is eligibility changing somewhere else?

Is another benefit being reduced?

Is implementation delayed to lower the cost inside the budget window?

Is another population losing something?

If the answer is yes, identify them.

Then ask:

Is this an appropriate funding mechanism?

Sometimes the answer may be yes.

Sometimes a fee or offset is closely related to the policy and makes perfect sense.

But sometimes Congress is effectively saying:

We are going to help these veterans by charging those veterans.

Or:

We are going to improve this survivor benefit by reducing something available to another part of the military community.

That should make every advocate stop and look carefully.

Stop Making the Military Community Fight Over the Same Dollar

This is particularly important in military and veterans advocacy.

Veterans, survivors, caregivers, military families, retirees, Guard members, Reservists, and active-duty service members should not automatically be treated as each other's piggy banks.

If Congress believes a policy is important enough to enact, then Congress should be prepared to have an honest conversation about paying for it.

That doesn't mean there can never be an offset within veterans programs.

It means the justification should be stronger than:

“Well, we needed to find the money somewhere.”

Because once advocates accept that logic without question, Congress has a very convenient funding model.

Want to help one group of veterans?

Find another group of veterans to pay for it.

Want to help survivors?

Find another military-connected population to absorb the cost.

Then everyone gets sent into the arena to fight over whose earned benefits matter more.

No.

That is not a competition advocates should willingly accept.

Scarcity Can Be Manufactured by Priorities

The United States spends trillions of dollars through the federal government.

Congress makes choices about those dollars every year.

Defense.

Health care.

Infrastructure.

Agriculture.

Foreign assistance.

Tax policy.

Federal salaries.

Scientific research.

Debt service.

Veterans programs.

Thousands upon thousands of programs and priorities.

That does not mean there is an unlimited pile of money.

There isn't.

It means every budget reflects choices.

So when someone says:

“We can't afford this.”

An advocate should sometimes respond:

“Compared with what?”

What else is being funded?

What did Congress decide was a higher priority?

What tax provisions were extended?

What other programs were expanded?

What spending was protected?

Those questions do not automatically prove Congress should fund your proposal.

But they reveal the real debate.

It may not be whether the United States literally possesses the resources.

It may be whether Congress considers your issue important enough to allocate them.

Fiscal Responsibility Works Both Ways

There is another side advocates shouldn't ignore.

Not every program deserves unlimited funding because it helps veterans.

Yes, I said it.

Veterans policy should be scrutinized too.

Programs should have measurable outcomes.

Administrative spending should be examined.

Duplication should be identified.

Programs that do not work should be reformed or eliminated.

Fraud and waste should be addressed.

If advocates demand fiscal accountability everywhere except the programs they personally support, that isn't fiscal responsibility.

That's advocacy with a calculator conveniently missing a few buttons.

We should be willing to defend both the purpose and the cost of the policies we support.

“Who Pays?” May Be More Important Than “How Much?”

This is the question I wish advocates asked more often.

A proposal costs $10 billion.

Okay.

That's useful information.

But tell me:

Who pays the $10 billion?

General federal revenues?

A new fee?

Higher fees on veterans?

Reduced benefits?

Changed eligibility?

Another federal program?

Future beneficiaries?

Taxpayers generally?

Debt?

Because two bills can provide the exact same benefit at the exact same estimated cost and still represent completely different policy choices depending on how they are funded.

The price tag tells you how much.

The funding mechanism tells you who Congress decided should carry the burden.

Advocates need to understand both.

Don't Let the Price Tag End the Conversation

When someone tells you your proposal is too expensive, don't immediately accuse them of hating veterans.

That's lazy advocacy.

Ask questions.

What is the estimated cost?

Over what period?

What assumptions produced the estimate?

Is the spending mandatory or discretionary?

Would PAYGO or another budget rule apply?

What offsets are being considered?

Are there alternatives?

Can the legislation be structured differently?

Can implementation be phased without harming the people who need it?

Can Congress choose another funding mechanism?

And most importantly:

Who are you asking to pay for this?

Those are serious policy questions.

Ask them seriously.

Kill the Myth

Sometimes Congress genuinely cannot fund everything everyone wants.

There are real budget constraints.

There are real deficits.

There are competing national priorities.

Advocates should acknowledge that.

But we should stop pretending every declaration of “we can't afford it” is an objective statement handed down from the universe.

Government budgets are choices.

Funding mechanisms are choices.

Offsets are choices.

Priorities are choices.

Myth: “We can't afford it” means there is simply no money available.

Reality: Sometimes a proposal truly is too expensive. Sometimes Congress has simply decided other priorities come first. And sometimes Congress can fund your priority only because it has decided someone else should pay for it.

So yes.

Ask:

“What does this cost?”

But don't stop there.

Ask:

“Who are you making pay for it?”

Because the second question may tell you far more about the legislation than the first.

And whatever you do...

Read the damn bill.