Most of the coverage of President Trump’s “skinny” budget focused on spending cuts, eliminated agencies, and boosted defense and security spending.

There were also two pages (out of 62) that talked about Management, specifically referring to initiatives that have been called performance-based budgeting.

This isn’t a new concept.

Looking back there have been a number of Presidential performance-based budgeting initiatives including the Hoover Commission (Eisenhower), Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS – Johnson), Management by Objectives (MBO – Nixon), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB – Carter), Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA – Clinton), and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART – Bush), just to name a few.

Looking at the current budget and federal government, it is obvious that these initiatives have had limited success. Not because government is necessarily doing a bad job, but because better performance doesn’t equal more budget savings and in some cases poor performance can equal larger budgets. For instance, major programs, projects, and acquisitions can have huge cost overruns and continue to be funded.

But back to the Trump budget – it outlines the President’s Management Agenda (same term the Bush Administration used with their PART initiative) and says that with their effort, in “2020 we will be able to say the following” and lists four areas of performance. Essentially it is that agencies are more effective, spending more on mission achievement than on compliance with performance requirements, better at supporting program outcomes, and held accountable for improving performance.

Let’s be clear. We’re all for improving performance. The Trump budget even took our tag line “Making Government Work” and added “Again” to the end to tout their management agenda. But, we can also tell you there is a lot more to be done to achieve these outcomes than putting a few paragraphs on paper and zeroing out programs.

We are encouraged that some of the proposed budget cuts were described as being for programs that were underperforming or unnecessary – like the erroneously-named Essential Air Service or the regional development authorities. But to make those and other cuts stick – if justified – the Administration will have to fight with Congress and make a public case for the cuts.

To illustrate, the Bush Administration published and explained their PART findings. They put the information out on a website Results.gov. It wasn’t perfect and we certainly disagreed with some of the assessments, but the information, performance targets and justification were there in black and white for all to see. It’s obviously early in the Trump Administration, but to be effective and believable the new administration has to publish these findings. They also have to be fair. To only expect performance-based budgeting out of the non-defense discretionary accounts, which is less than half of the discretionary budget, without tackling waste at the Pentagon is not fair or believable. The administration also has to stand up to their party. Despite several opportunities (the 2002 Farm Bill, and the bloated 2005 transportation bill to name just two) President Bush didn’t veto a single piece of legislation his first six years in office. It took a Democratic Congressional majority for him to find his veto pen. Something we heartily complained about at the time. To get performance you have to demand, and provide, accountability. And we demand that of this Administration.