What's Wrong With Under Promise, Over Deliver?

By Tim Fernholz

February 11, 2011 | 2:57 PM |

You might have heard that the House GOP is now planning to cut $100 billion in spending following pressure from newly-elected conservatives who want them to honor their Pledge to America. That's not precisely true, as we'll explain, but perhaps more importantly, congressional Republicans' insistence on the $100 billion number could prove troublesome down the road.

First, the arithmetic: House Republicans now intend to cut $100 billion -- from last year's White House budget request, which was never enacted. Compared to current real spending, the House GOP plans a cut of about $59 billion, and would still spend $15 billion more on domestic discretionary programs than in 2008.

There's nothing problematic about comparing the GOP's plan with the president's proposed budget to highlight policy differences, but it does matter when you're trying to claim the cuts as savings. Despite the insistence of Republican leaders, their current proposal doesn't match their Pledge to America:

"With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, prebailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt."

Republicans have good reasons for not meeting their targets: They don't have a full year to make all the cuts they want thanks to last year's temporary spending bill, which lasts until March 4. Indeed, they adapted their goal to match the rate of spending in 2008 for the last seven months of the current fiscal year, and they'll likely exceed that. And at $59 billion in total, these are mammoth cuts to domestic discretionary spending, the largest since the Reagan era.

But, by insisting on the $100 billion figure, Republicans might be playing with fire. Republican strategists argue that proposals from the House will serve as advantageous political markers for the 2012 elections, so even though their health care repeal bill was defeated in the senate, they can campaign on the vote.

Unlike their health care repeal effort, however, even if House Republicans passed $100 billion in actual cuts, a majority will still vote for a spending bill that passes the Senate and will be signed by the president. While this final draft will likely include spending reductions, most congressional observers believe they will be less than the first version passed by the House.

That raises troubling questions for the House Republican leadership: Knowing full well their first spending bill is a starting point for negotiations, why can't their caucus pass what they promised? And if they're over-promising and under-delivering while they have complete control, what will they tell their conservative activists when the final compromise is negotiated?

Permalink

Join the Discussion

The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.

Comments powered by Disqus

About Voices

A free and paid website. A weekly magazine. A daily newspaper. A political almanac and Hotline. You would think we already have enough platforms at National Journal, enough ways to communicate with our readers and viewers. But there are never enough ways to talk to you. So we are creating this page to feature the voices of our most prolific staffers. Join the conversation. There'll be more to come.