Papers

II. Analysis of Findings

A. Increases vs. Cuts

For the first time in ten years, the House and Senate ratios of spending increase bills to spending decrease bills declined from the levels of the previous Congress. During 1995, the first year of the Republicans' control of Congress, there were fewer than two increase bills for each bill to cut spending in the House and Senate. By the 108^th Congress, this ratio escalated to 23:1 in the House and 32:1 in the Senate. In the First Session of the current Congress, the House ratio dropped by nearly a third, to 17:1. The change in the Senate's

ratio was less dramatic, dipping to 31:1. At this rate of change, the House would not return to the record low level ratio of the 104^th Congress until it convenes for the 117^th Congress in 2021. The Senate would not equal its lowest ratio (also achieved in the 104^th Congress) until the 235^th Congress in 2257.

The change in the ratio of increase to decrease bills was greater in the House because the number of cut bills introduced by Members increased from 35 to 48. Yet, some concerned taxpayers may greet this change with a yawn rather than a cheer. Given that Representatives and Senators introduced more spending bills in the 108^th Congress than they had in any of the previous six Congresses – it would be hard not to produce a lower ratio. Moreover, the current number of savings bills is still barely one-fifth of the total racked up by the 104^th Congress.

Ten years ago, Republicans, armed with the Contract with America, vowed to transform the way Congress works and bring about the "end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money."[5] As the data shows, Members stuck to this vow for the first years of the Republican majority: the number of new spending increase bills were low relative to the years the Democrats controlled Congress. In subsequent years, however, adherence to the vow weakened, as witnessed by the increasingly unbalanced ratio of increases to cuts – due largely to the dwindling number of savings bills.

B. Members' Spending Agendas

1. The Net Results

Compared to 2003, the average Senator and the average House Republican have scaled back their spending agendas and offset a greater portion of their initiatives with savings. In the 2005, House Republicans proposed half as many spending increases ($16.4 billion) and nearly twice as much savings ($4.9 billion) as they did in the opening year of the 108^th Congress. In net, if all of the bills sponsored by the typical House Republican became law, spending would increase by $11.6 billion, a significantly smaller amount when compared to their $30.7 billion net agenda in the 108^th.

During the first three Congresses of their majority (the 104^th, 105^th, and 106^th) Republicans proposed, on average, $10.4 billion in new spending and $21 billion in savings. In contrast, over the period of the 107^th, 108^th, and 109^th Congresses, they averaged $26.9 billion in new spending and $6.2 billion in savings.

During 2005, the net agenda of the typical Senator of either party also decreased from the levels reached in the 108^th Congress. The average Democrat proposed a net of $52 billion – nearly a third of the $174.1 billion net total in 2003. The net agenda of the typical Senate Republican contracted by more than half from $26.1 billion in the last Congress to $11.4 billion in 2005.

The House Democrats were the trend breakers in the new Congress. While the typical Senator's and House Republican's net spending agenda has decreased since 2003, the House Democrat's total has risen by over a third. During 2005, the average House Democrat proposed more spending increases ($547.5 billion) and fewer cuts ($166 million) than in any of the previous eight Congresses. One major reason behind this considerable growth is Democratic support for increased health care spending, including plans to provide universal health coverage in the United States.

2. Whither the Offsets?

One pattern that stands out in the above tables is the disparity between the Members' total plans for spending increases compared to savings. As recently as the 106^th Congress, House and Senate Republicans proposed on average more savings than spending, i.e., if all of the bills they sponsored or cosponsored became law, federal outlays would decline. In the 109^th, House Republicans would offset roughly a third of their spending legislation and Senators would offset a fifth of their agendas. Meanwhile, House and Senate Democrats would offset less than 1 percent of their new spending outlays.

Why are the savings levels low relative to the proposed increases? The main culprit is the lopsided introduction rates for bills. As discussed above, the number of bills introduced to increase spending overwhelmed the number of bills to decrease spending. Members' sponsorship and cosponsorship rates followed a similar pattern. The average Representative sponsored 45 bills to boost expenditures and two to cut them (1.9 per Democrat and 2.8 per Republican). The main difference between the parties in this regard is that the typical Democrat signed onto over twice as many increase bills (65 versus 28). The

total figures are similar in the Senate. Taking the Chamber as a whole, the average Senator sponsored or cosponsored 40 bills to increase spending and 2 cut bills; however, each Democrat backed an average of 55 increase bills and 2 cut bills while the Republican ratio was 28:1.

Figures 3 and 4 below show in more detail the relative paucity of savings bills sponsored per Member; 62 Representatives neither introduced their own legislation to reduce spending nor did they sign onto any of the 48 savings bills introduced by their colleagues. There were 12 such Senators. The majority of lawmakers (77 percent of Representatives and 85 percent of Senators) sponsored 3 or fewer cut bills.

3. The Outliers

Table 4 (below) shows the number of Representatives and Senators with the highest and lowest net spending agendas over the last few Congresses. The number of Members calling for new spending in the amount of $100 billion or more has declined since the 108^th. A major explanation for this is that there were several different proposals introduced (and widely sponsored) during the 108^th to establish a prescription drug benefit component to the Medicare entitlement program. One of the Republican-supported versions became law in December of 2003.

Interestingly, for the 109^th Congress data in the above table, all of the Members (from both the House and Senate) with net agendas to reduce spending were Republicans and all of the Members who sponsored bills that would cumulatively increase spending by more than $100 billion were Democrats (plus the independent Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)). This latter group produced these spending agendas by sponsoring more spending initiatives than the average Member. A Representative from either party typically sponsored 45.4 increase bills and 2.4 spending bills: The 86 Members whose agendas would increase spending by greater than $100 billion each posted an average of 85.6 spending bills and 2.6 cut bills. Conversely, the Members whose agendas would result in a reduction of federal outlays sponsored, on average, fewer increase bills (21.5) and more cut bills (5.3).

The typical Senator sponsored 40.2 increase bills and 1.6 savings bills while the five Senators with the highest spending agendas each backed 75.4 increase bills and 0.8 spending bills. In contrast, the six Senators whose agendas would reduce spending supported on average 14.5 increase bills and 1.7 cutting bills. It is stating the obvious to note that the ingredients for a high net spending agenda are high sponsorship rates of new spending with only a sprinkling of cutting bills. It will be difficult to balance federal outlays with current revenues until more Members likewise balance their calls for bigger outlays with reductions elsewhere in the Fiscal Year 2006 $2.7 trillion budget.

C. Congressional Priorities

1. Where Your Money Would Be Spent

Congress works hard to devise ways to spend taxpayers' money as demonstrated by the number of bills introduced. If all of the 821 House spending bills became law, federal outlays would nearly double, by $2.6 trillion (similar bills that accomplish the same goal are not counted toward this total). The 48 savings bills totaling $46.9 billion would offset 1.8 percent of this amount. The Senate is less prolific both in terms of the number of bills and their combined total cost. The 597 increase bills would generate $446.3 billion in new spending, with a $51.9 billion offset (11.6 percent) by the 19 savings bills.

The expansion and creation of health care benefits continues to be a major focus of Congress. The three most expensive bills in the House are: H.R. 3000, the Josephine Butler United States Health Service Act ($1.6 trillion in new annual spending, with 12 sponsors); H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act ($1.6 trillion in new annual spending, with 63 sponsors during the First Session – up from 39 during the whole course of the 108^th Congress); and, H.R. 15, the National Health Insurance Act ($534.6 billion, with one sponsor). All of these proposals are variations of a universal health care program financed by the federal government.[6] The fourth most expensive piece of legislation, H.R. 3055, the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005 (with 44 sponsors in 2005) would phase in universal health coverage for all children up to the age of 21. The annualized price tag is $74.7 billion. Only one bill among the ten most expensive in the House did not pertain to health care: H.R. 3, which authorizes expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund, became law with a net increase of $31.3 billion annually.[7]

The top Senate bills were more diverse. The most expensive bill was S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 ($83.6 billion), followed by S. 1303, the Senate companion of the MediKids legislation. The next most expensive bill was S. 1765, the Louisiana Katrina Reconstruction Act (also reintroduced as S. 1766) with a cost of $42.3 billion. Next on the list was the Senate's version of the highway bill, S. 732, which would have raised spending by $25.8 billion annually.

2. How Congress Would Save Your Money

The largest savings proposals tracked in Congress would reform the Tax Code and eliminate the refundable tax credits. Refundable credits are essentially a negative tax to supplement the income of certain eligible taxpayers and result in a payment from the Treasury to the extent that the value of the credits exceeds a person's tax liability. These subsidies resulted in outlays totaling $49.3 billion in 2006.[8] This figure is an increase from $27.1 billion

in 2001.[9] Refundable credits increased in value over the intervening years because they were included in several of the recent tax cut bills in order to help gain broader support for the measures in Congress. The Flat Tax bills to replace the Tax Code, S. 812 and S. 1099 (there were none in the House during the First Session[10]) would result in savings of $47.4 billion. A related proposal, the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25 and its companion bill, S. 25) would save $11.2 billion annually over the next five years.

House bills H.R. 3903, 3905, and 3906 would make across-the-board rescissions in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary outlays of one, two, and five percent, respectively, for a savings ranging from $4 to $21.5 billion. Each had 19 cosponsors. Another significant source of savings, included as a component in several predominantly Democrat-sponsored bills, would repeal a "stabilization fund" created in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act passed during the 108^th Congress. The 10-year, $10 billion fund was created to entice regional Preferred Provider Organizations to participate in the new program.

D. Freshmen and Returning Members

Do freshmen Congressmen propose to spend less money than their longer-serving colleagues? As Table 7 (above) shows, the answer in general is that they do, but the bulk of the difference between the net agendas of the typical freshman and non-freshman is due to Democrats. New Democrats in office are proposing fewer spending increases and more savings than tenured Democrats. This is especially true in the House, where freshmen Democrats called for half as many proposed increases and nine times as many savings. Across the aisle however, Freshmen Republicans in both Chambers are proposing more net spending than their longer-serving colleagues.

E. House 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 "organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives."[11] On its website, the BDC states that one of its top priorities in the 109^th Congress "… will be to refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the debt places on them."[12] Table 8 shows that Representatives in these caucuses proposed less spending and more savings than other Members in their respective parties.

A related third caucus, the Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP)[13] states it is comprised of "fiscally conservative deficit hawks" who take a "pragmatic approach to governance."[14] Given this statement, it may surprise some taxpayers that members of the RMSP proposed twice as much net spending as the average Republican.

The Table also shows that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), whose members are all Democrats, helped drive up the net agenda of the average Member of their party. The typical Member of the CBC proposed nearly twice as much spending as the average Democrat, while the typical Member of the CHC proposed 29 percent more spending.

F. Red vs. Blue

Following the close elections in 2000 and 2004, pundits and analysts have described the "red states," which supported President George W. Bush, as more conservative than the so-called "blue states," which gave their vote to former Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry. Figures 5 and 6 show that to a certain degree the generalizations regarding the fiscal outlook of citizens in red states and those in blue states are valid when it comes to Members of Congress. The strongest correlating support for the "blue" vs. "red" dichotomy is found in the House. Democrats and Republicans representing blue state tended to propose twice as much spending as their respective red state counterparts. In the Senate, the difference in the level of spending proposed by Senators from blue states and red states was smaller than in the House. "Blue" Democrats in the upper chamber proposed 26 percent more net spending than those from red states ($56.3 billion vs. $44.8 billion). The net agendas compiled by Republican Senators break the pattern. The nine blue state Republican Senators proposed, on average, 3 percent less spending than the 46 red state Republicans ($11.1 vs. $11.4 billion).

G. Net Worth and Spending Agendas

Each year Roll Call compiles a list of the 50 wealthiest Members of Congress based on financial information filed with the Federal Election Commission.[15] How do the wealthiest Representatives and Senators apply their money management skills to their spending agendas in comparison to their colleagues? Tables 9 and 10 show that, with the exception of the richest Senate Democrats, the Members of Roll Call's list were more frugal with the taxpayers' money than their less well-to-do colleagues. The three Senators with the highest net worth, Democrats John Kerry (MA), Jon Corzine (NJ), and Jay Rockefeller (WV), were also among

the four Senators with the highest net spending agendas. However, the 9 richest Senate Republicans and 9 richest House Democrats ranked by Roll Call, proposed net spending agendas that were less than half than those of their respective party colleagues.

III. Conclusion

Most Members have scaled back their spending initiatives from the record levels of the 108^th Congress. Despite what some taxpayers may consider as an "improvement," the focus in Congress continues to be on consideration of ways to expand federal outlays. The vast majority Representatives and Senators are not balancing their spending agendas with plans for reductions. This practice, left unchecked, will likely lead to increased demands from the government for more of taxpayers' income.

Demian S. Brady
Senior Policy Analyst

Research information was compiled with the assistance of Policy Analyst Elizabeth Terrell and Associate Policy Analysts Kyle Colvin, Greg Fick, Will Fields, Katelyn Finley, Lacey Holmes, Ryan Kool, Matt Schultz, Ashley Theodore, and Michael Villard.

End Notes