Papers

II.Analysis of Findings

A. Why Look at Sponsorship?

This study examines trends of federal spending through the prism of Members' sponsorship records. Analysis of voting records over time can provide valuable insights into a Member's budgetary principles, but on occasion it can be difficult to determine the reason guiding a decision on a specific vote. Bills can be complex with several components, and a Member's vote can be subject to interpretation. For example, a generally pro-military Senator may vote against an increase in defense spending he would otherwise support, because of an added clause directing that a portion of the funds in the bill go towards family planning (and therefore decides to oppose it out of pro-life principles). This vote could later be used against him, rightly or wrongly, to say that he is opposed to strengthening nation defense. Or a Representative on record for supporting expansion of preventative health care spending under Medicare may vote against a bill that would do just that because he believes the funds provided in the bill are inadequate to meet its stated policy objectives. This vote could be used to attack that Representative for failing to support the Medicare safety net when in fact he opposed the measure because he believed the bill would shortchange the program.

This problem of construing intent can be avoided by examining Congressional sponsorship -- those bills that a Member either authors, co-authors, or otherwise officially endorses as a cosponsor. The record resulting from this component of Congressional behavior can help provide an understanding of a Member's legislative interests and budgetary philosophy.[2] This study looks at a Member's sponsorship record as his or her "wish list" and then tabulates the cost of that list as though all of the items were to instantaneously become law. This data for each Member can be tracked with other variables and events to examine influences on spending behavior, such as time in office, party identification, the overall budgetary climate, and other factors.

B. A Sign of Change?

For the first time since the 104^th Congress, the ratio of increase bills to decrease bills has declined in both the House and the Senate (see Table 1 below). Over the past 10-plus years, the number of cut bills introduced during the first 18 months of each Congress has declined while the number of bills to increase spending has soared. During the 108^th Congress, the number of costed spending increase bills reached record highs in both the House and the Senate, but for the first time since the 103^rd Congress, spending cut bills in the House became more prevalent as well. This uptick also occurred in the Senate, for the first time since the 104^th Congress.

Although the ratio of spending increases to cuts is still over 20 times its level in the 104^th Congress (see Figures 1 and 2 below), this drop of the ratio could be a harbinger of a new trend that will see a greater number of savings provisions introduced in Congress. Ten years ago, record deficits spurred the movement toward proposals to cut spending. The subsequent budget surpluses led to a slackening of fiscal discipline as Members of Congress sought ways to turn the Treasury's excess cash flow into new policy initiatives. Now with the return of federal deficits, Members may be slowly turning their attention again to budget cutting legislation. It remains to be seen whether this is a trend with momentum that will carry through to the 109^th Congress, or whether this upswing in the number of savings bills is merely a minor detour on the way to a seemingly ever-expanding federal budget.

C. On The Other Hand...

The slight rise in the number of proposals to reduce spending has had little impact on Members' aggregate net spending totals. This observation holds true across parties in both chambers of Congress (see Tables 2 and 3). Fewer Members are sponsoring multiple bills to cut spending, so, the net agendas of the typical House Republican and Democrat rose to record levels. For the Democrats this resulted from a surge in calls for new spending (up over $100 billion from this time during the 107^th Congress) and a record decline in the average agenda to cut spending (down to $201 million from $864 million two years ago and $23 billion 10 years ago). In short, the average Democrat would have to increase his or her dollar amount of sponsored savings to 2,500 times its current level in order to "balance" his or her agenda so that it had no net impact on the budget.

Across the aisle, the average House Republican proposed fewer spending increases than at this point in the previous Congress, but also proposed a record low total of savings (three times smaller than during the 107^th). Because of this record low -- a drop of more than $9 billion since two years ago and $58 billion since 10 years ago -- the average net agenda for a GOP Member surpassed the net agenda of the average Senate Republican for the first time since 1992.

In the Senate (see Table 3 above), net agendas of the typical Republican and Democrat continued the trend of upward growth that has taken place over the past several Congresses. This occurred despite the fact that the average total sponsorship of savings bills rose from its level at this point of the 107^th Congress. Not since the 103^rd Congress had the average Senator of either party called for greater reductions in spending compared to the totals produced in the preceding Congress.

D. The Outliers -- Boom and Bust

As Table 4 (below) shows, there are fewer and fewer Members of Congress whose overall spending agenda would reduce the size of the federal government. In contrast, 167 Representatives, including four Republicans, one Independent, and 162 Democrats (totaling 38 percent of the House), sponsored legislation that would increase spending by at least $100 billion per year. At this point in the 106^th Congress -- just four years ago -- there was only one Member with an agenda calling for this level of annual spending increases.

E. The Agenda -- How Would Members Spend Your Tax Dollars?

Table 6 (above) details the level of spending proposed (savings provisions are excluded from this Table) in various categories, as well as the number of bills proposed affecting each issue area and their average cost. Interestingly, in terms of the percentage of bills corresponding to each issue area, Representatives and Senators divided their workload similarly. Only two issue areas varied between chambers by more than one percentage point: the House focused a greater portion of its workload on transportation and infrastructure legislation (4.6 percent of all costed bills) than the Senate (3.2 percent), while the Senate's homeland security workload (5.3 percent of all costed bills) was larger than the House's (3.8 percent).

One might reasonably assume that the increase in the size of Representatives' and Senators' spending agendas detailed in this report is occurring in response to our military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts of the global war against terrorism. Another important item on the national agenda is the fortification of our homeland security network. Yet, as Table 6 shows, in both chambers the total cost of proposals for foreign affairs, homeland security, and national defense were outpaced by legislation that would increase spending on child care programs (including expansion of the federally funded State Children's Health Insurance Program), economic stimulus (including state bailout plans and other bills designed to expand the economy), entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), and welfare (including unemployment compensation).

F. Freshmen and Member Caucuses

Supporters of term limits will likely be heartened to learn that freshman Members of Congress in both parties proposed less spending than their respective longer-serving colleagues proposed. The difference was most notable among House Democrats: the typical returning House Democrat proposed to spend nearly $200 billion more than the typical Democrat newcomer did.

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 strategy to promote or oppose particular legislation. Two such caucuses, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition (BDC), both claim to promote fiscal discipline within their respective parties. RSC states that it "organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives,"[3] and Representative Baron Hill (D-IN), Communications Co-Chair for the BDC, states that the Coalition is composed of "moderate-to-conservative Democrats who offer common-sense solutions and strongly advocate fiscal discipline."[4] While the average Member of each of these caucuses compiled a net agenda that would increase spending, there was a measurable difference from Members of their respective parties who are not in either caucus. The typical RSC member proposed less spending and more savings than the average non-RSC Republican, and the same holds true when Blue Dogs are compared to non-Blue Dog Democrats.

If being "fiscally conservative" means that a Representative or Senator has a smaller net spending agenda than his or her peers and having a larger agenda is "fiscally liberal," then the 38 current members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) -- all of whom are Democrats -- have, on average, compiled some of the most "fiscally liberal" net spending agendas within the Democratic party. The typical CBC Democrat had a net annual spending agenda that was nearly three times larger than all other Democrats.[5] Meanwhile, the typical Representative in the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, which is comprised of Members from both parties, had a net spending agenda that was nearly 2-1/2 times larger than the average agenda of all other Representatives.[6]

G. Senatorial Noblesse Oblige

Roll Call recently published its list of the 50 wealthiest Members of Congress.[7] Of this select group, 29 were Representatives and 21 were Senators. The average net agenda of the 20 richest Senators was nearly $75 billion higher than the average net agenda of all other Senators. The difference was mainly driven by the wealthiest Democrats, four of whom were on the list of the Senators with the 10 highest net agendas. In contrast, the results in the House were reversed: the average agendas of the wealthiest Representatives in total and by party were lower than the rest of the House.

III. Conclusion

As the record shows, the historic election 10 years ago had a noticeable impact on Members' spending agendas. The 104^th Congress was generally the high-water mark for taxpayers expecting their elected officials to exercise fiscal discipline. Since then, the spending agendas of most Members of Congress have steadily increased while the savings agendas have steadily declined. Although the average net agendas of both parties in both the House and the Senate are on track to reach new heights in the 108^th Congress, there are a few underlying indications that Members may be regaining an interest in reining in spending. Time will tell whether these signs become a full-fledged trend. If they do not, the continued demand for increases in the federal budget will be detrimental to efforts to reform the Tax Code and modernize Social Security, and it will jeopardize vows by both Presidential candidates to cut the deficit in half.

Demian S. Brady
Senior Policy Analyst

Notes