 Commentaries
 Printable Version |
 Email to a friend
The Flip-Flopping 15: Some Wishy-washy Republicans Aren't So Committed to Fiscal Responsibilityby
Kristina Rasmussen Nov 30, 2007 President Bush has discovered his veto powers, in the embodiment of that
old adage: better late than never. And in another win for taxpayers, 141
House Republicans successfully voted to sustain the president's veto of
the $150 billion labor, health, and education appropriations bill.
Spending in this legislation had ballooned by $10 billion over the
president's budget request, and had attracted some 2,200 earmarks worth
nearly $1 billion.
This vote was a critical test of a letter circulated by the Republican
Study Committee earlier this year that pledged: "Should you [the
president] veto an FY 2008 appropriations bill because it would contribute
to an overall spending level that exceeds your budget request, we will
vote to sustain that veto."
Eventually 147 House Republicans would put their name on that statement --
mathematically enough to sustain a veto. However, in the recent 277-141
vote, 15 Republican House members who had signed that letter broke their
word and voted to override the president's veto.
Members of the "Flip-Flopping 15" include Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.), Vern
Buchanan (Fla.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.),
Phil English (Pa.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Ric Keller (Fla.), Steven
LaTourette (Ohio), Chip Pickering (Miss.), Jon Porter (Nev.), Tom Reynolds
(N.Y.), Mike Rogers (Ala.), Chris Shays (Conn.), Greg Walden (Oreg.), and
Ed Whitfield (Ky.).
Thankfully, 17 House members who hadn't signed the letter voted to sustain
the veto. (Six signers didn't vote and two are deceased.) But why the
disheartening defections? Did House members with razor-thin 2006 election
margins (and an eye on 2008) feel the need to neutralize big-spender
opponents with a vote in favor of higher expenditures?
Considering that only 6 of the Flip-Flopping 15 were elected in 2006 with
less than 55 percent of the vote (usually considered the "magic number"
denoting safer seats), politics isn't the whole answer. After all,
numerous House members (including John Doolittle of California and Marilyn
Musgrave of Colorado) who garnered election totals below 55 percent voted
to sustain the veto.
Is the answer policy-related? There's mixed evidence for this. Of all the
appropriations bills for Republicans to reject, this was one of the most
deserving. It included $10 billion of the proposed $23 billion in "over
the budget request" spending that Democratic leaders have dangled in front
of their rank-and-file as an inducement to toe the party line.
The Departments of Labor, Health, and Education house 14 of the 27
programs that were rated "ineffective" by the federally developed Program
Assessment Rating Tool. Additionally, the president had recommended
eliminating 56 programs worth $3.2 billion in the bill that were
"duplicative, narrowly focused, or not producing results." But the
Democratic leadership funded them anyway. Twenty-one earmarks were
"airdropped" into the conference bill - against the rules. On the measures
of thrift, efficiency, and waste, this bill came up woefully short.
However, past behavior proves to be a good indicator of why certain House
members voted the way they did. The National Taxpayers Union's annual
rating of Congress considers all votes relating to tax, spending, and
regulatory policy. As could be expected, Republican House members who
voted to sustain the veto received an average "B" grade in the 2006
rating. Members who signed the pledge letter but voted against the veto
received an average "C" score. And those who didn't sign the letter and
voted to override the veto posted an average "C-" grade.
Big-government Republicans voted for higher federal spending, while
limited-government stalwarts said no. But the wishy-washy Republicans in
the middle could have used this opportunity to better demonstrate their
stated (but rarely honored) commitments to fiscally responsible policy.
With so many core GOP supporters clamoring for a return to first
principles, this would have been good politics, too.
Another congressional test on spending is likely to come next week, with
Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., N.V.) suggesting that he might roll
the remaining spending bills into a massive omnibus package. It's almost
certain to exceed the president's top budget line, and Bush should veto
it.
But will the Flip-Flopping 15 disappoint taxpayers again? Americans who
pay the government's bills will be waiting for the answer.
Ms. Rasmussen is director of Government Affairs for NTU. This article appeared at NationalReview.com.
|
