Heritage Action performed a thorough analysis of the House continuing resolution, which included more than 60 amendments (out of more than 100 that were offered). They looked specifically at how each member voted on amendments that proposed “unambiguous cuts” to non-defense spending. Here are some of the findings:
– 47 members (all Republicans) voted for every single spending cut (italics = freshmen):
Reps. Amash, Bachmann, Broun, Campbell, Chabot, Chaffetz, Coffman, Duncan (Tenn.), Duncan (S.C.), Flake, Fleming, Franks, Garrett, Gowdy, Graves (Ga.), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Huelskamp, Huizenga, Hurt, Jenkins, Jordan, Lamborn, Mack, McClintock, McHenry, Miller (Fla.), Mulvaney, Myrick, Neugebauer, Paul, Pence, Pompeo, Price (Ga.), Ribble, Rokita, Royce, Scalise, Schweikert, Scott (Ga.), Scott (S.C.), Sessions, Walsh, Wilson, Woodall, and Young (Ind.).
– 133 members (all Democrats) voted against every single spending cut.
– The Republicans most reluctant to cut spending were (in descending order, italics = freshmen):
Reps. Reichert, LaTourette, Biggert, Gerlach, Simpson, Diaz-Balart, Smith (N.J.), Bass, Frelinghuysen, Wolf, Wittman, Dent, Dold, Grimm, Kinzinger, Meehan, Stivers, and Young (Fla.).
– The Democrats most willing to support spending cuts were:
Reps. Costa, Peters, Boren, Holden, Peterson, Altmire, Cardoza, Owens, Barrow, Cuellar, Ross, Shuler, Costello, Schrader, McIntyre, Chandler, Donnelly, Himes, and Kissell.
More here.
Surprising Lipinski wasnt on the Dem list....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSlight correction - Tom McClintock is not a freshman - he's in his second term
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm so unimpressed by the Republicans' "budget-cutting" ($3.83 trillion minus $100 billion equals $3.73 trillion - yippee) that it's barely worth taking the time to criticize the details other than to point that the amount spent on items that are "off the table" relative to the size of this year's projected deficit (we'll go from $1.65 trillion to $1.55 trillion!) make the exercise almost pointless.
I do have a question: If the increasing federal debt is so dangerous to our nation and so unfair to future generations as they say and if House Republicans really want to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, then why doesn't the House propose balancing the budget now? Simply make an appropriation for the remainder of FY 2011 (for all purposes - domestic discretionary, defense and entitlements) that is equal to the amount we anticipate receiving in revenue.
Nothing's stopping them. So why not?
Other than that they're not serious and, ala Rahm Emanuel, they're simply using the budget crisis as an excuse to cut specific things they don't like and to fund stuff they do like.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is excellent data to review the social vs. fiscal conservatism debate.
Many here on NRO have argued that social conservatives need to stand down this election, or at least put their issues aside for the more important issue of fiscal reform. Mitch Daniels went so far as to say social conservatives should declare a unilateral truce.
The implication here is that social conservatism gets in the way of the greater priority of fiscal conservatism. Well does it? Do we have any data with which to analyze that question? We do!
I looked at the Heritage Foundation scorecard on those Republicans that were most likely to support spending cuts, versus those Republicans most likely to oppose spending cuts. I then searched out every name on the Christian Coalition's 2010 scorecard (I excluded freshman) which rates how congressman voted on 10 different social issues (abortion, health care, gay marriage, etc.).
Now all these congressman are Republicans and they vote the same most of the time. As far as that goes the most liberal Democrats vote the same as the most conservative Republicans MOST of the time. There are a small number of crucial votes that make all the difference. In other words, there is a world of difference between a 80 or 90 Christian Coalition score and a 100 score. So I compiled a list of Republican spenders vs. Republican cutters and I compared that to the Christian Coalition scorecard of congressman that vote the social conservative line 100% of the time. Here's what I found:
1) Of the 32 (non-freshman) congressman scored 100% by the Christian Coalition on social issues, 84% of them were rated as the most likely to cut spending by the Heritage Foundation.
2) Of the 9 congressman that the Christian Coalition did not score 100%, 7 or 78% of them made up the Heritage Foundation list of the congressman LEAST LIKELY to cut spending.
How about the Congressman who aren't 100% social conservatives, but who are dedicated to cutting spending? These are precisely the guys many libertarians are saying now need to lead the GOP.
3) Congressman who are not 100% social conservatives make up 2 out of 29 congressman who are most likely to cut spending. In percentage terms they make up 7% of those MOST LIKELY to cut spending. Conversely, of these non-social conservative Republicans, 78% are among those LEAST LIKELY to support spending cuts.
But not all social conservatives can be relied upon to cut spending. Some of those Republicans LEAST LIKELY to cut spending also scored 100% on the Christian Coalition scorecard.
4) Of the 32 Congressman rated 100% by the Christian Coalition on social issues 16% (5) are among those LEAST LIKELY to cut spending.
5) Of the 32 Congressman rated 100% by the Christian Coalition on social issues 84% (27) are among those MOST LIKELY to cut spending.
Every politician alive will tell you he's against unnecessary spending. As a voter, how do you know if he'll turn out to be a spender or a cutter? Ask him about the 10 issues appearing on the Christian Coalition social conservatism scorecard. If he doesn't score 100% as a social conservative, the odds overwhelmingly say he has little interest in real spending cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse