America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.


Blog Contributors

Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President 

Dan Barrett
Research and Outreach Manager 

Melodie Bowler
Government Affairs Intern 

Demian Brady
Director of Research 

Christina DiSomma
Communications Intern 

Jihun Han
Communications Intern 

Timothy Howland
Creative Content Manager 

Samantha Jordan
Communications Intern 

Curtis Kalin
Communications Intern 

Ross Kaminsky
Blog Contributor 

David Keating
Blog Contributor 

Douglas Kellogg
Communications Manager 

Sharon Koss
Government Affairs Intern 

Michael Liguori
Government Affairs Intern 

Richard Lipman
Director of Development 

Joe Michalowski
Government Affairs Intern 

Diana Oprinescu
Communications Intern 

Austin Peters
Communications Intern 

Kristina Rasmussen
Blog Contributor 

Senate Defeat of Cut, Cap, & Balance Not Surprising Given Fiscal Records

July 22, 2011

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated, "The Republicans' so-called Cut, Cap and Balance plan doesn't have one chance in a million to pass the Senate."  And, today the measure was killed on a motion to table by a vote of 51 to 46.  Three Senators did not vote.  While this result might not have been much of a surprise to anyone, a quick look at the fiscal record of Senators from the previous Congress suggests that the outcome was determined before the vote was even taken.

As they say in the financial industry, past performance is not an indication of future behavior, but a review of BillTally data for those Senators who served in the Senate during the 111th Congress shows that they might not have been inclined to support Cut, Cap, and Balance.  Eighty-three Senators who served in the previous Congress, and who were included in the BillTally data set for that Congress, are still serving.  (NTUF's BillTally program computes a net legislative spending agenda for each Member of Congress by analyzing the costs – and savings – of the bills that Members sponsor and cosponsor.)

Those who voted to consider Cut, Cap, and Balance had, on average, a net spending agenda of $10.3 billion in the previous Congress.  Those who voted to kill Cut, Cap, and Balance had, on average, a net spending agenda of $214.9 billion.  The chart below breaks out net spending agendas by party.


It seems difficult to believe that Senators would support Cut, Cap, and Balance if their prior fiscal agendas were about growing, expanding, and ballooning the size of the federal government.


Comment on this blog

Enter this word:

User Comments

Submitted by Catlady at: July 29, 2011
I can't believe no one comments here so I'm going to be the first. If anyone believes Obama and either the Democratic or Republican parties are interested in securing a future that doesn't include bread lines, rationing of everything, high costs for every type of energy, few jobs except government jobs, and a viable way we remain a democratic republic, I'd say they have been drinking the government sponsored/mandated Kool Aid.