The appropriations process for FY 2005 doesn't lend itself well to periodic updates on which bills have been passed and who the winners and losers are. No one is even pretending that the House and Senate will debate and pass any of the 13 separate appropriations bills, or reconcile the two versions in conference -- the normal budget process. Rather, it has been clear from the start that an impossibly tight budget in an election year will dictate the process.

Appropriations for FY 2005 will be accomplished through either a huge omnibus bill with most of the appropriations (excluding defense) included, or several "mini-buses" each containing a few appropriations. Those appear to be the only kind of vehicles that can move this election year.

Does it matter? With everything else going on, is a broken budget process worth worrying about? Well, yes. The budget is how the nation's priorities get determined -- whether you are concerned about the arts, the environment, human needs, children, education, or anything else that receives federal funding. As is often the case, the process has a lot to do with the resulting substance. In past years, omnibus bills were the final resort at the last minute to avoid more continuing resolutions or a government shutdown -- this year they are the premise from which everyone is starting.

To say this year's budget process lacks transparency -- lumping a bunch of appropriations together and passing them on the basis of negotiations that occur mostly behind closed doors -- is an understatement. Many of us will have no idea what is in the bills until after they are passed (and many in Congress who are voting on them won't either). Bad provisions can more easily get stuck in at the last minute. There will be little opportunity to lobby for or against specific spending cuts before House or Senate votes, unless you are already on the inside. Even beyond that, a flawed budget process under too-tight constraints can actually lead to more -- rather than less -- spending, both because there is no transparency, and because the process becomes so irrational and unwieldy. The budget process becomes very closed, incoherent, and even, some would conclude, undemocratic, especially since it will tilt control to the president, who can shape the package.

Without reasonable levels for spending -- levels that take into account the cost of inflation and population growth and that adequately support the services that citizens want and deserve -- a rational budget based on short- and long-term needs and priorities becomes impossible. A good budget requires reasonable revenue from the taxes we pay to support the myriad things government does for each of us -- many of which we take so much for granted they have become invisible. Until then, we can look forward to less and less transparency in what may be the most important activity of government, and one in which its citizens and future generations have a huge stake -- passing a budget.