Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Unwillingness to Fight?
One common argument we’ve heard this election cycle is that people are angry at Republicans because of the GOP’s fecklessness and unwillingness to reign in the Obama Administration. But based on this data, that anger may have been misplaced:
A president’s budget proposal tends to be a curious document that acts as part wishful thinking and part a projection of hope into the future. For example, Bush’s last budget proposal showed a federal government that was on track to produce a balanced budget within a few years. Obama’s budget, on the other hand, anticipated a massive spending increase in the first year (due to stimulus spending) followed by pretty typical increases of about 6 percent per year. That “6 percent” is important because in 2009 it was the rate at which federal spending had grown year over year for almost 30 years. So that is the number the Obama team used as their standard for how quickly spending should keep growing. But after Republicans took control of Congress in 2011, despite what you may have heard, they really did put a brake on federal spending. A really good brake. In fact, since 2011, federal spending has increased at only 1.3 percent per year … the slowest rate since the aftermath of World War II.
That looks pretty good to me, and it translates into some serious money:
The projected federal spending number in this chart is the initial spending projection for those years taken from Obama’s budgets. It represents how the Obama team anticipated to spend given a standard 6 percent yearly increase in spending. The orange bar is what the federal government actually spent.
In 2009, Obama promised to cut federal spending by $100 million, which sounds big but is actually hilariously small in terms of federal spending. By contrast, by 2012 (the first fiscal year the majority GOP could even influence), the Republicans had slashed Obama’s budget expectations by $217 billion … more than 2,000 times that amount.
And that was just the beginning.
The difference between Obama’s 2015 spending projection and what was actually spent was an astounding $697 billion dollars. That’s more money than we spent on Medicaid.
Let that sink in.
In five years, the Republicans managed to hold back Obama’s spending increases by more money than if they actually got rid of Medicaid. And so far 2016 looks like it will hold to that trend.
If you took the difference between Obama’s projected spending and the actual spending appropriated by Congress for all five years, it’s a jaw-dropping difference of $2.5 trillion.
That’s some real walking around money in Federal Budget Terms.
There is an extremely long way to go and plenty of reason for frustration, but this is more than a decent start on the spending front. That they managed this with a hostile president is even more remarkable.
Not bad for the party that never fights.
Published in Domestic Policy, General
How do you plan to get such a thing passed?
I think a lot of the frustration over this matter isn’t disagreeing with the OP. This post is good work.
The problem is what voters were sold and what they worked for in 2010 and 2014.
I don’t recall a single newly elected Republican Congressman running on a platform of: “I will vote against most or all of the new programs President Obama proposes, but all those in place must be funded fully. We will grow government and spending at a slower pace than the Democrats”.
What we were sold is “We will stop the Obama agenda!”
If the Republicans ran on the former platform I do not think they would have the Congressional majorities they/we enjoy.
Are we better off than the alternative? Yes and the OP details that nicely. Are we experiencing the rock ribbed commitment we were promised? Not even close and in my opinion that = Trump.
Paul Ryan’s first budget, however, stands in contrast to the victories you mention. (Yes, it was Boehner’s budget, and I don’t blame Ryan for it.) Even though the GOP had the majority it asked for, the Democrats got most of what they wanted … funding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, etc. That’s the kind of thing that angers conservatives.
But there are other arenas where the GOP hasn’t fought in the constitutional balance of power. The Constitution assumes – it was designed to work this way – that when the executive exceeds his authority, Congress will push back, mostly through the power of the purse. Congress, however, is plainly petrified of using that power. That’s why the government shutdown is an important symbol. When GOP politicians say, out loud, that they won’t shut down the government under any circumstance because they’re afraid of the media backlash, that communicates an awful lot of weakness. It gives Obama a blank check for power.
The GOP didn’t stop Obamacare. The GOP stands by idly while Obama uses executive privilege to simply walk around them. Just last week, Obama basically assumed control of every school in the country by using federal funds as blackmail … and we conservatives hear complaints but no constitutional responses from the GOP.
The GOP is a counter-weight that’s afraid to throw its weight around.
I tried to figure this out, but there is a lot of gobbledygook in our Federal budgets…off books spending, budget and , actual spending. It needs serious study to understand. So I am asking the brilliant minds here on Ricochet for some help. The “emergency relief, shovel ready” additional spending in Obama’s first year was somewhere near $900 million. It is my understanding that that money became baked in the cake of the Federal budget. After that all additional increases have been on top of that original “special” funding.
If that is the actual reality, then giving kudos to Republicans for holding back spending increases is simply participating in another game of hide the peanut. Plus the onerous omnibus spending bills are still being used as a way to hide spending on specific items.
Doesn’t anyone else here wonder where Obama gets the money to enact his executive orders? Don’t omnibus spending bills enable POTUS to act unconstitutionally?
Not to me.
You might be right as a factual matter, but as a logical matter it doesn’t make much sense.
Yes, but you are a libertarian first and Republican second.
There are a lot of folks wringing their hands over Trump that couldn’t wait to bash the Tea Party and call them wacko birds.
The GOP in Congress does not really stand for serious conservative ideas, despite being “the most Conservative Congress” ever.
How about a bill to force the states to honor each other’s Concealed Carry Permits the way they have to honor Driver’s licenses? Why not have passed this when Bush was in the Whitehouse?
This would be a simple signal to the base that they were serious on something.
The answer is simple: The bulk of the people in the National GOP are no different than the Dems in wanting to disarm the population. Jeb! et. al. are not conservative, and they do not really believe in Freedom or Liberty, but in managing the nation from D.C.
Is trump any different? Not really.
That is fair criticism and the connection isn’t immediately obvious.
I wonder though if on a couple of issues: funding for Obamacare implementation, TPA, and planned parenthood that if Republicans held the line they could’ve taken away several of the hammers Trump uses to beat them.
Many Trump supporters are the ones who experienced huge insurance and deductible increases from Obamacare. Republicans caved and that gives Trump an opening for his outsider, strong man, going to right all wrongs, appearance.
Republicans, including Ted Cruz, voted for TPA/TPP without having read it. What if they would’ve said no to TPA and that TPP would have to cross the 2/3 majority Rubicon in the Senate and ensure U.S. workers as well as business benefit from it? That limits Trump’s trade thunder.
Planned Parenthood would’ve been a small portion of the budget and put Obama and Democrats on the defensive. Republicans were gifted the body parts selling scandal and squandered it because Obama’s father is a black muslim.
There is a thing in the Senate called the “fillibuster.” You might want to read about it a little bit, because it would demonstrate why your comment is totally wrong and impractical.
Even leaving that aside, even if your proposal was possible, it would only help Obama and hurt Republicans. Is that your goal? To help Obama and hurt Republicans? The “Evil Establishment (TM)” has the silly view that if your are going to pull political stunts that don’t actually accomplish anything, they ought to be things that make the other side look bad and be unpopular, not your own side.
There is a thing called a majority and parliamentary procedure you may have heard that alleviates that artificial barrier.
Please do not let facts get in the way of your continued condescending insults of fellow members.
I have seen this data before and for all of my problems with the GOP leadership, I was willing to give them credit for holding the line on spending but here’s the real story – that was accomplished by the success of sequestration which the GOP pushed through – but they repealed sequestration last fall because they didn’t like the spending restrictions!!! Spending is now increasing again – in fact, Politico recently reported that one of the new appropriations bills passed by the GOP Senate provides more money than requested by the Obama administration.
We were promised that a regular appropriations process would be restored once the GOP controlled Congress, but Politico also reports that now the GOP plans to continue with omnibus bills and because they are afraid of the Dem Senate minority they will be dropping all regulatory riders.
Then we have the Ryan omnibus bill last fall in which he sacrificed everything except the Chamber of Commerce backed provisions in order to get a deal with Pelosi.
So, yes I do think there was good news for awhile but the GOP leadership has done its best to undo the actions that created the news.
For those of us willing to give McConnell & Co a chance the events of last fall were the final straw.
The thought occurred to me, while some of us are praising the work of our esteemed legislature, that the bottom line is a huge tell. Our national debt has gone from 11 Trillion after GW to 19 Trillion after Obama. Doesn’t that really say it all?
That is indeed a good metric.
What I think we have to include is that since 2011, or the majority of Obama’s rule Republicans have held the House.
A lion’s share of damage occurred under the Obama/Reid/Pelosi cabal for sure, but Republicans have passed every omnibus appropriations debacle since.
During the middle of Obama’s term spending moderated due to the sequester, but if memory serves that was proposed by Obama thinking Republicans would cave. Good on Republicans for not caving, but let’s not over do it with respect to where the idea originated.
Is this the same “fillibuster” that was able to keep Obama appointments off the DC Court of Appeals?
So a Senate procedure that Harry Reid showed us can be changed by a majority vote at virtually any time is the big reason a majority Republican Senate can not do something?
There is a thing called “The Rules of the Senate”. You might want to read up on that, because it would demonstrate how the fillibuster is only an impediment to the majority if it chooses it to be (See, Reid, Harry, Judicial Nominations).
I put it that way to demonstrate a point. You might consider making more of an argument and having less snark.
I’m no expert on the federal budget process, but isn’t all the ‘reduction’ in spending due to the huge and irresponsible cuts to the military due to the sequester?
Sorry, but when I think of conservative’s expectations of a balanced budget, it doesn’t include cutting the guts out of our military while ISIS grows and Iran gets a bomb?
I am just sick of these know-nothing criticisms of the “Establishment.” Especially when it comes to spending.
More than 75% of the budget is mandatory spending, which is almost entirely social security and medicare. Defense is another 16% and interest on the debt is about 6%. If you are at all like me, then you don’t want to see further cuts in military spending, and you recognize that it would be catastrophic to default on the national debt. That means that in order to meaningfully cut (or even control) spending, you have to address entitlements. Have to. And those entitlements are rising rapidly simply due to demographics.
Controlling spending on social security and medicare is, as a matter of politics, incredibly difficult. Anyone who tries to take a meat cleaver to them is going to get killed, and so is their Party. The only person who has actually been trying is Paul Ryan, and the GOP has been behind him (cautiously).
But not the voters. They don’t want to hear about it. And certainly not the burn, baby, burn crowd. They really don’t want to hear about it. They just want someone to wave a magic wand and make lots of spending disappear. They have no plan for how to do it, and they don’t want to hear about the difficulty. Easier to just blame everything on the “Establishment.”
If you have not offered a plan for how to cut spending, quit throwing stones.
Defense was a portion. Obama’s bluff in the sequester was his hoping that Republicans would not tolerate the defense cuts to get the other spending cuts.
The Republicans called his bluff and from an overall spending perspective it appears one of the things they did correct.
I’m sorry Bryan, but that is just nonsense. If you are trying to say that you would like to see the Republicans go with the “nuclear option” and eliminate the filibuster, then make your case for it. But remember that there will be a time (soon) when the Dems control the Congress and the Presidency. The only defense we would have against Hillary as President might be the filibuster. If you want to toss out what may soon be our only defense against an out of control leftist agenda, just for the psychic “satisfaction” of forcing Obama to veto something, then I think your position is very ill-considered.
If you want to impress me with a criticism of the “Establishment,” you will have to say something specific. You can’t just say, “Well, rules.” Tell me what you want them to pass, how they can get it done, and what you think the result would be. Sure, I know you don’t care about impressing me, but reality doesn’t care whether you care. Reality will go on without you.
Only if you think it was an acceptable compromise to slash the military in exchange for a short term cap on overall spending. I understand it was meant as a call on Obama’s bluff, but in the end, I can’t really accept that the result was a win for Republicans. The end result seems to be that little or none of Obama’s agenda was stopped, the growth of the federal government was barely if at all slowed, the debut hit massive new heights, but the military was handicapped?
I have a very hard time rejoicing at the successes of the Republicans on limiting spending when the debt has grown to what, 19.2 trillion?
I thought the primary elections made it quite clear that not even Republican voters are actually interested in controlling spending. So elected officials are in fact doing exactly what most voters want.
Fiscal conservatives have a choice between massive spending increases (dems), or moderate spending increases (GOP). If we want real cuts all we have to do is convince tens of millions of additional voters to support cuts. Easy right?
I agree with you.
However, in the course of this argument I think it is good to consider both sides of it because it is a complex issue. If we are going to solely analyze gross spending the sequester had an effect on that metric. Unfortunately, as you correctly point out it also had adverse side effects.
I assure you I am not rejoicing and hence my first couple of comments in the thread. Digging a hole with a smaller shovel is still expanding/deepening the hole.
That argument would have once carried weight with me, but it is very clear now that the Democrats will do away with the filibuster whenever it suits their purposes, regardless of what the GOP does. My view is that if there is a GOP president and it also controls the Senate and House it should do away with the filibuster and quickly pass as much legislation as possible. Then let the Dems try to reverse it down the road.
That has been the conventional wisdom for a couple of generations. We know how the conventional wisdom has fared in this current political season. Things that were unthinkable only years ago are now enforced by federal/royal decree. Politics may be the art of the possible, but it seems that all sorts of things can be made to seem possible today.
Exactly. It is especially galling to hear Trump supporters complaining about failure to control spending, when Trump has made it very clear that he is putting entitlements off-limits.
I am sick to the the elected officials, and candidates for office, promising to fix the problems and then getting elected and all of a sudden “discovering” they can’t. Nothing changed between the campaign and their first day in office. If they can’t fix it they shouldn’t make the promise.
If you don’t have a plan to cut spending don’t run a campaign promising to cut spending. If you do run a campaign promising to cut spending you should expect that people will hold you to your word.
The key words there are “seem possible.” Anything can seem possible if you are living in a fairy tale and don’t care about reality. I’m still waiting for someone here to offer up an actual plan to cut or control entitlements, but I’m not holding my breath.
The voters demand to be lied to. As I said, they don’t want to hear about the difficulties or the details. They just want someone who will promise “hope and change” or “make America great again.” I wish politicians could get elected by telling the truth and not making impossible promises. I wish, wish, wish. But I can’t see it happening. You go to the election with the electorate you have…
I was under the impression from multiple posts on this site that the results of the Primary elections were not indicative of the feelings of 60% of the Republican electorate.
Which is it, the Primary is either reflective of the majority or it is not. If Trump is not the real choice of the majority than neither are his “policies”.