Policy Paper No. 167
BillTally Report 111-1
June 3, 2010
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”: The First
Session of the 111th Congress
The disastrous oil leak ongoing since April in the Gulf of Mexico has the potential to affect
local ecosystems for quite some time. The firm BP was unable to contain the underwater gusher
after a safeguard mechanism known as a “blowout preventer” failed to activate. Yet, an even larger
leak has been hemorrhaging for several years – the federal budget that has burst under the pressure
of overspending with no effective “blowout preventer” of its own. While Gulf states are braced for
a black tide of oil, future generations face a red tide of debt from unbalanced budgets and
unfunded liabilities. The comparison is not trivial: this year’s budget projects a deficit of $1.6
trillion, racking up nearly $4.4 billion of debt per day. In addition, the government will borrow
forty-one cents out of each dollar spent. In late May, BP, under the oversight of several federal
entities, began working on what the New York Times called an “audacious plan” to stop the leak.
This included the failed “top kill” option. But as Members of Congress wave fingers at oil
company officials in front of approving TV cameras, how are they responding to control the leak
in the budget? The latest report from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s (NTUF)
BillTally project shows some efforts being made, but it is questionable whether taxpayers would
call those efforts “audacious.”
This report summarizes data from NTUF’s BillTally accounting software, which studied the
cost or savings of all legislation introduced in the First Session of the 111th Congress that affects
spending by at least $1 million. Agenda totals for individual lawmakers were developed by crossindexing their sponsorship and cosponsorship records with cost estimates for 1,044 House bills and
654 Senate bills under BillTally accounting rules that prevent the double counting of overlapping
proposals. All sponsorship and cost data in this report were reviewed confidentially by each
congressional office prior to publication. Appendix A lists all Members alphabetically, Appendix B
lists Members by state delegation, and Appendix C gives a thorough explanation of the BillTally
methodology.
I.
Data Highlights
•
Representatives authored 981 bills to raise federal spending and 63 bills to reduce
spending. Senators drafted 620 increase bills and 34 savings bills. This comprised the
largest number of savings bills introduced in the House since the 105th Congress, and the
most in the Senate since the 106th.
2
•
Each bill in the House to cut spending was outnumbered by 16 bills to increase spending.
The ratio of increases to cuts was 18:1 in the Senate. Even so, in both Chambers this ratio
represents a significant decline from the 110th Congress.
•
Excluding overlapping legislation, if each bill in the House were to become law, spending
would increase by $1.845 trillion, or $15,802 per household. If each bill in the Senate were
to become law, spending would increase by $1.064 trillion, $9,115 per household.
•
The typical House Democrat backed increases totaling $502.5 billion, 0.46 percent of
which would be offset by savings of $2.3 billion, for a net agenda of $500.2 billion. This
amount had been gradually declining since the 109th Congress.
•
For the first time since the 106th Congress, the typical House Republican sponsored more
spending cuts than increases. If this average spending agenda were enacted, outlays would
decrease by $45.3 billion.
•
The net agenda of the typical Senate Democrat grew from $59.2 billion in the 110th
Congress to $133.7 billion this Congress. On average, Senate Democrats proposed
spending cuts of $3.3 billion, which would offset 2.4 percent of their sponsored increases.
•
Republican Senators, on average, supported spending hikes of $76.3 billion, a third of
which would be offset by $25.4 billion in savings. This comprises a net spending agenda of
$50.9 billion – the highest amount seen over the past ten Congresses.
•
The 111th Congress had the most “net cutters” since the 104th Congress. The number of
Members whose net agenda would reduce spending stood at 119 in the House and 24 in the
Senate – more than twice as many as in the last Congress. However, the ranks of Members
with agendas greater than $100 billion grew from 107 to 128 in the House, and tripled to 24
in the Senate.
•
With the exception of incoming Democrats in the Senate, the typical freshman sponsored
less spending and greater savings than their more senior colleagues.
•
Members of the Republican Study Committee and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, two
of the self-identified “fiscally conservative” caucuses in the House, compiled lower net
spending agendas than other Members of Congress in their respective parties.
•
Although the average House Republican was a net cutter, the typical member of the
Republican Main Street Partnership, which claims to be composed of “fiscally conservative
deficit hawks,” compiled an average net agenda to increase spending by $40.6 billion.
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”
II.
Analysis of Findings
A. Bill Introduction Rates
It should be no surprise that Representatives and Senators are collectively more likely to draft
legislation that calls for spending increases rather than cuts. As Table 1 shows, this has been the
trend since 102nd Congress, and one that continues in the 111th Congress. But for the first time in
several years, the ratio of increases to cuts saw a relatively large simultaneous drop in both
Chambers as Members drafted more savings bills and fewer spending bills.
Table 1. Bill Introduction Rates in the Past Ten Congresses
and Number of Scored Bills
Congress Spending Increase Spending Cut Bills Ratio of Increase Bills to
Decrease Bills
Bills
House
102nd
640
78
8.21
103rd
722
229
3.15
104th
316
250
1.26
th
105
440
159
2.77
106th
515
51
10.10
107th
653
37
17.65
108th
821
35
23.46
th
109
821
48
17.10
th
110
1,078
50
21.56
111th
981
63
15.57
Senate
102nd
395
30
13.17
rd
103
425
124
3.43
th
104
207
121
1.71
105th
321
55
5.84
106th
418
41
10.20
th
107
391
13
30.08
108th
643
20
32.15
th
109
597
19
31.42
110th
745
25
29.80
th
111
620
34
18.24
For each House bill to cut spending in the First Session of the 111th Congress, Members
introduced nearly 16 bills that would increase spending. The House ratio of increases to decreases
dropped by nearly 28 percent from the last Congress (22 to 1), and is now at its lowest level since
the 106th Congress, when it stood at 10 to 1. The number of savings bills climbed from 50 to 63, a
26 percent boost. The number of cut bills has grown in each Congress since the 108th, which had
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
3
the fewest House cut proposals BillTally ever identified (35). The 104th Congress holds the record
for the most cut proposals with 250, four times as many as during the current Congress.
During the First Session of the 110th Congress, Representatives introduced the most bills to
increase spending, 1,078. In 2009, Members proposed 981 spending increases, nine percent fewer
than the last Congress but still second-highest overall.
Similar developments also occurred in the Senate. The ratio of increase bills to cut bills shrunk
by 39 percent, from nearly 30:1 in the 110th Congress to 18:1 last year. Thus, 2009 marked a
continuing trend of decline for this ratio from its height of 32:1 in the 108th Congress.
Of the 654 Senate bills with cost estimates introduced in the First Session, 34 would decrease
spending, up 36 percent from the 25 cut bills in the previous Congress. This was also the most
savings bills introduced in the Upper Chamber since the First Session of the 106th Congress. The
103rd Congress had the most cut bills (124), nearly four times as many as during the 111th
Congress.
B. Cost of All Unique Bills by Chamber
The fiscal impact of all the legislation within a Chamber can be determined by adding up the
cost and savings of the proposals, while also excluding overlapping legislation. Under BillTally’s
methodology, if a Member is a sponsor of multiple bills that would achieve the same purpose, only
one of them will be counted toward his or her net spending agenda.*
•
If each bill in the House were to become law, spending would increase by $1.845 trillion,
net of $2.157 trillion in increases and $311 billion in savings.†
•
If each bill in the Senate were to become law, spending would increase by $1.064 trillion,
net of $1.259 trillion in new outlays minus $194 billion in savings.
•
Each $1 million in savings would be crowded out by $7 million in increases in the House,
and $6 million in the Senate.
•
Cost per household of the House bills: $15,802 (up from $14,802 in 2007). Cost per
household for the Senate bills: $9,115 (down from $9,857 in 2007).1
C. Party Averages
The typical Member of the House backed less spending than in the previous Congress (see
Table 2, below). But whereas Democrats, on average, would offset a small portion of their
*
Since the BillTally program offsets House and Senate bills separately and the two Chambers often take up identical
or similar pieces of legislation, adding up these amounts would not give the cost of all bills considered in the First
Session of the 111th Congress.
†
Totals may not add due to rounding.
4
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”
spending hikes with corresponding spending reductions, the average Republican called for more
spending cuts than increases – an outcome that has not been seen in BillTally data in many years.
The amount of increases that House Democrats would offset with cuts stood at less than half a
percentage point, which is actually the highest offset rate since the 106th Congress (when the
average House Democrat offset nearly five percent of spending increases with corresponding cuts).
The highest offset level was reached in the 103rd Congress, when the typical House Democrat
sponsored $22.2 billion in cuts, offsetting nearly eight percent of their spending proposals that
year. The average Democrat sponsored $2.3 billion in spending cuts, a notable development versus
the 109th Congress (when the figure was only $166 million in savings), and the most since the
105th Congress. Their average net agenda, which peaked in the 109th Congress at $547.4 billion,
has dropped for the second consecutive Congress and would increase outlays by $500.2 billion.
Table 2. House Sponsorship of Legislation in the First Sessions of the Past Ten Congresses
by Party
(Dollar Amounts in Millions)
Congress
Proposed Increases Proposed Cuts Net Agendas
Percent of
Increases Offset by
Cuts
Democrats
102nd
$109,248
($1,428)
$107,821
1.31%
rd
103
$284,475
($22,221)
$262,254
7.81%
th
104
$173,641
($8,979)
$164,662
5.17%
105th
$106,510
($2,815)
$103,695
2.64%
th
106
$35,597
($1,707)
$33,890
4.80%
th
107
$263,191
($836)
$262,355
0.32%
108th
$401,927
($356)
$401,571
0.09%
th
109
$547,548
($166)
$547,382
0.03%
110th
$547,954
($971)
$546,983
0.18%
th
111
$502,525
($2,332)
$500,193
0.46%
Republicans
102nd
$15,165
($4,032)
$11,134
26.59%
103rd
$34,786
($54,143)
($19,356)
155.65%
104th
$5,405
($25,038)
($19,633)
463.24%
th
105
$8,903
($16,308)
($7,405)
183.17%
106th
$16,952
($21,512)
($4,560)
126.90%
th
107
$30,677
($10,908)
$19,769
35.56%
th
108
$33,500
($2,821)
$30,679
8.42%
109th
$16,439
($4,854)
$11,584
29.53%
110th
$13,794
($7,009)
$6,785
50.81%
111th
$26,719
($71,990)
($45,271)
269.43%
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. House averages exclude Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
5
For the first time since the 106th Congress, the average House Republican called for more
spending cuts than increases. If all of the bills sponsored by the average House Republican became
law, federal outlays would decline by $45.3 billion. Even though the typical House Republican
sponsored nearly twice as many increases than in the previous Congress, the amount of offsetting
savings leaped from $7.0 billion in the 110th Congress’s First Session, to $72.0 billion in 2009.
This is the biggest jump ever tracked by the BillTally program.
Republicans sponsored, on average, 24 bills to increase outlays and six savings bills; so their
agenda declined primarily because of a few but potentially large savings proposals. These included
the establishment of discretionary spending caps (one would save $131.4 billion, the other would
save $43.9 billion); repeal of unobligated “stimulus” funds ($91.6 billion as of last winter); acrossthe-board rescissions in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending ($28.2
billion); and, repeal of authority to extend the Troubled Asset Relief Program ($27.9 billion).‡
Unlike in the House, where the average Member sponsored less net spending than during the
previous Congress, the average Senator – regardless of party – sponsored a larger net spending
agenda in the 111th compared to the 110th (see Table 3, below). On the plus side for budgetconscious taxpayers, the amount of savings sponsored by the average Democrat increased from
$190 million in the 109th Congress to $730 million in the 110th, and then jumped to $3.3 billion in
the first year of the current Congress. This helped raise the share of spending increases that would
be offset with cuts elsewhere, to 2.4 percent. On the other hand, Democrats proposed increases
totaling $137 billion, more than doubling the amount in the previous Congress. In total, the
average Democrat compiled a net agenda to increase spending by $133.7 billion, more than twice
as much as during the First Session of the 110th Congress, and the third-highest overall for the
party in the Senate.
The amount of spending increases the average Republican Senator proposed swelled from
$13.1 billion to $76.3 billion. This is the most spending the typical Republican Senator has ever
sponsored, topping the previous record of $42.3 billion in the 103rd Congress. In that Congress,
greater offsets were pursued – the typical Republican Senator proposed to cut outlays by $62.9
billion, more than offsetting the proposed increases. During the opening of this Congress, the
average Republican Senator proposed $25.4 billion in cuts, offsetting about one-third of their
spending hikes. The net spending agenda of the average Republican in the Senate ($50.9 billion)
was eight times larger than in the previous Congress, $6.5 billion. This is attributable to five
Republicans’ decisions to cosponsor a bill that would establish a (mandatory) Healthy Americans
Private Insurance Plan ($527.7 billion).
‡
The TARP estimate is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update from August, 2009
(http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf). The actual savings could be much smaller if more loans are
paid back (the data in the above report reflected a 34.6 percent subsidy rate for TARP) or if unobligated funds remain unspent.
6
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”
Table 3. Senate Sponsorship of Legislation in the First Sessions of the Past Ten
Congresses by Party
(Dollar Amounts in Millions)
Congress
Proposed Increases Proposed Cuts
Net Agendas
Percent of
Increases Offset
by Cuts
Democrats
102nd
$34,099
($5,098)
$29,001
14.95%
103rd
$208,324
($12,044)
$196,280
5.78%
th
104
$3,372
($4,629)
($1,257)
137.28%
105th
$21,769
($1,364)
$20,405
6.27%
th
106
$15,526
($850)
$14,676
5.47%
th
107
$88,337
($158)
$88,179
0.18%
108th
$174,406
($257)
$174,150
0.15%
th
109
$52,331
($190)
$52,141
0.36%
th
110
$59,921
($730)
$59,191
1.22%
111th
$137,035
($3,328)
$133,706
2.43%
Republicans
102nd
$13,826
($8,548)
$5,278
61.83%
rd
103
$42,276
($62,943)
($20,667)
148.89%
th
104
$6,308
($22,247)
($15,939)
352.68%
105th
$13,209
($8,201)
$5,008
62.09%
th
106
$9,048
($9,372)
($324)
103.58%
th
107
$18,726
($22)
$18,703
0.12%
108th
$28,563
($2,479)
$26,084
8.68%
th
109
$14,554
($3,178)
$11,377
21.84%
110th
$13,076
($6,543)
$6,533
50.04%
111th
$76,340
($25,413)
$50,927
33.29%
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Sanders (I-VT) are not included in
this table.
D. The Outliers
Members’ bill sponsorship activity in the 111th Congress produced some interesting swings
among the “outliers” (those with the largest agendas and those with negative agendas). In the
House and Senate the numbers of “net cutters” reached their highest levels in nearly 15 years, but
the number of Members with agendas to increase spending by at least $100 billion was also on the
upturn.
The number of net cutters in the House more than doubled from a previous level of 55 to 119
(see Figure 1, below). That figure represents less than a third (27 percent) of House Members
included in the study. Four of these were Democrats; the remainder consisted of Republicans. This
was the most net cutters since the 104th Congress, when there were 233. The Senate saw the ranks
of net cutters increase from 11 in the 110th Congress to 24 (including one Democrat), also the most
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
7
Figure 1. Number of Representatives with Net Agendas to Reduce Spending and
Number of Members with Spending Agendas Greater Than $100 Billion in the First
Session
250
Representatives
200
150
100
50
0
102nd
103rd
104th
105th
106th
107th
108th
109th
110th
111th
Congress
Members with Net Agendas to Reduce Spending
Members with Net Spending Agendas Greater Than $100 Billion
Figure 2. Number of Senators with Net Agendas to Reduce Spending and Number of
Members with Spending Agendas Greater Than $100 Billion in the First Session
80
70
Senators
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
102nd
103rd
104th
105th
106th
107th
108th
109th
110th
111th
Congress
Senators with Net Agendas to Reduce Spending
Senators with Net Spending Agendas Greater Than $100 Billion
8
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”
since the 104th Congress when three-fourths of Senators proposed net agendas to reduce spending
(see Figure 2, below).
At the other edge of the spending spectrum, the number of Representatives and Senators whose
agendas topped $100 billion also rose to the highest level in several years: to 128 in the House
(including two Republicans), and 24 in the Senate (including five Republicans and two
Independents).
E. Freshman vs. Returning Members
Table 4. Average Net Spending Agendas of Freshmen and Returning Members in the
111th Congress, by Party (in Millions)
Proposed
# of
Proposed # of
Net Agenda
Cuts
Cuts
Increases Increases
House
All Freshmen
All Returning
$165,157
$330,902
34
48
($32,753)
($30,232)
4
4
$132,404
$300,670
Freshman Democrats
Returning Democrats
$258,262
$541,782
42
64
($5,919)
($1,755)
3
3
$252,343
$540,026
Freshman Republicans $16,921
Returning Republicans $28,101
Senate
All Freshmen
$136,102
All Returning
$122,682
20
25
($78,147)
($71,122)
6
5
($61,226)
($43,021)
47
41
($5,559)
-$13,107
4
4
$130,543
$109,576
Freshman Democrats
Returning Democrats
$162,678
$131,579
53
56
($1,095)
($3,804)
4
5
$161,583
$127,775
Freshman Republicans
Returning Republicans
$3,224
$80,188
20
22
($27,882)
($25,283)
2
3
($24,658)
$54,905
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Do freshman lawmakers propose less spending than their longer-serving colleagues? As Table
4 (above) shows, with the exception of Senate Democrats, they do – incidentally, a result also seen
in the data from First Session of the 110th Congress. On average, newcomers to the House had net
agendas less than half the cost of returning Representatives. The typical freshman Democrat would
offset two percent of their spending compared to an offset rate of a third of a percent for returning
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
9
Democrats. The typical House Republican had a net agenda to reduce spending, but freshmen on
average would cut more from the budget.
Senate freshman Democrats proposed more spending ($161.6 billion) than returning
Democrats ($127.8 billion). Eight of the ten freshmen had net agendas lower than the average
Democrat, while the other two had the third and fourth largest spending agendas within their party.
The two freshman Republicans were among the 24 Senators with net agendas to cut spending.
F. Congressional Caucuses
Once elected to Congress, a Representative has the option to join any of several Member
caucuses that organize around a particular issue area and/or political philosophy. In these caucuses,
Members can share ideas and coordinate strategies to promote or oppose particular legislation.
Two such caucuses, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) and the Democratic Blue Dog
Coalition (BDC), both espouse fiscal discipline for their respective parties. The RSC states that it is
Table 5. Average Spending Agendas by Caucuses and Member Organizations in the 111th
Congress (in Millions)
Caucus
Proposed
Number
Proposed
Number of Net Agenda
Cuts
Cut Bills
Increases
of
Increase
Bills
$16,738
21
($95,156)
7
($78,418)
Republican Study
Committee
$58,628
34
($18,003)
3
$40,624
Republican Main
Street Partnership
$26,719
24
($71,990)
6
($45,271)
Average
Republican
Blue Dog
Democrats
Average Democrat
Congressional
Progressive
Caucus
All Other
Democrats
$134,223
$502,525
41
61
($1,193)
($2,332)
2
3
$133,031
$500,193
$1,081,190
81
($1,318)
4
$1,079,872
$245,340
52
($2,782)
3
$242,558
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Republicans Steve Austria, Roscoe Bartlett, Brian Bilbray, Dave Camp,
Lynn Jenkins, Chris Lee, Thaddeus McCotter, Aaron Schock, and Michael Turner are listed openly in both the RSC
and the RMSP. RMSP data only includes its Members in the House. Members of the BDC and CPC are all
Democrats.
10
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”
dedicated to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government.”2 On its website, the
BDC states that its members are “independent voices for fiscal responsibility and accountability”
and the coalition also outlines “15 steps that can be taken to put the country back on a path to
balance [sic] budgets and long term fiscal sustainability.”3 A related third caucus, the Republican
Main Street Partnership (RMSP),4 is “dedicated to promoting and building a pragmatic, thoughtful,
fiscally conservative, and inclusive ‘Governing Majority.’”5 The Partnership’s mission page
contends that its members are “fiscally conservative deficit hawks.”6
The three caucuses claiming the mantle of “fiscal discipline” produced widely disparate net
spending agendas. On the Republican side, members of the RSC called for an average net
spending agenda that would reduce spending by $78.4 billion, while those in the Main Street
Partnership proposed net budgetary increases of $40.6 billion. Both caucuses would be outspent by
the average Blue Dog, who sponsored legislation that would boost spending by $133.0 billion –
still, a level nearly four times lower than the net agenda of other Democrats.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which claims to be the largest caucus within the
general Democratic Caucus, is a group that makes no claim to “fiscal discipline” but instead favors
“economic justice.”7 The average member of the CPC sponsored 81 bills to increase spending and
four bills to cut spending, for a net agenda of nearly $1.1 trillion.
III.
Conclusion
There are several contributing factors to our government’s fiscal problems, but chief among
them is Congress’s willful habit of continually spending more than the government receives in
revenue. Unlike the BP rig, the budget process has no safeguards to contain spending, but as was
seen in the Gulf, sometimes safety mechanisms themselves are overwhelmed. In Washington,
sometimes they’re deliberately overridden. Congress’s previous spending caps, which proved so
porous as to allow tens of billions of dollars to slip past them, are a case in point.
Will Congress ever put in place stronger fiscal “blowout preventers” such as a Balanced
Budget Amendment to the Constitution? As the BillTally data seem to indicate, lawmakers have
begun looking in greater earnest for ways to control the leaking budget. Are they acting in time to
stave off a disaster for the nation’s balance sheet? Taxpayers are left to wonder.
Demian S. Brady
Senior Policy Analyst
Research was compiled with the assistance of Policy Analyst Dan Barrett and Associate Policy
Analysts Antonie Hodge, Alecia Jefferson, Drew Lewis, Cameron Nelson, and Emily Opalak.
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
11
End Notes
1
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010 (129th Edition), Washington, DC, 2009, Table
59, “Households, Families, Subfamilies, and Married Couples: 1980 to 2008,”
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0059.pdf.
2
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/AboutRSC/WhatisRSC.html.
3
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/.
4
The Republican Main Street Partnership includes Members from both Chambers, as well as officials at the state
level. These figures are based only on RMSP Members serving in the House.
5
http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/.
6
http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/index.php/Mission.
7
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=2&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=2.
12
Seeking the Budget “Blowout Preventer”