Policy Paper

For a more thorough discussion of the VoteTally methodology, please see Appendix C.

II.        Analysis

This study includes 225 House votes and 158 Senate votes cast during the 109^th Congress.  Several Members have been omitted from the data set used for analysis due to resignation, a low vote total, or because they did not serve the entire Session.[2]  Appendix A lists Members alphabetically and Appendix B lists Members by state delegation.

A.        Data Highlights

• The adjournment of the 109^th Congress marks the sixth straight year where no Member of Congress had a net voting record that would have reduced overall outlays, excluding the growth in entitlement – or mandatory – spending.  The number of spending cutters peaked during the 2nd Session of the 104^th Congress (1996) at 512 Members.

• During the 109^th Congress, the average Member of the House supported $305.1 billion in new spending increases.  This amount is significantly below the $394.2 billion in the 108^th Congress (a 23 percent reduction), but substantially above the $61.0 billion (a 400.1 percent jump) in spending increases from the 105^th Congress.

• While the amount of spending reductions that the average House Member voted for doubled compared to the 108^th Congress ($15.4 billion versus $7.3 billion), this is still almost two-thirds below what was supported in the 105^th Congress ($40.2 billion).

• Even though average net spending agendas in the 109^th Congress for House Republicans and Democrats ($279.4 billion and $301.2 billion, respectively) are lower than those of the 108^th Congress ($378.1 billion and $397.0 billion), these totals have risen astonishingly (1,525 percent and 1,124 percent) when compared to the 105^th Congress.

• The average Senator voted for $356.8 billion in new net spending during the 109^th Congress, excluding mandatory spending growth.  This is a 24 percent drop when compared to the 108^th Congress.  Net spending agendas are still higher than those in the 105^th Congress (637 percent), the 106^th Congress (88 percent), and the 107^th Congress (39 percent).

• The House met for a combined 1,917 hours during the 109^th Congress.  Based on the average Representative's net agenda, Members voted for $151 million in new spending for each hour that the House was in session.  The Senate was in session for a total of 2,250 hours during 2005 and 2006.  Using the average voting agenda for that chamber, Senators opted to increase spending by approximately $159 million per hour.

• The average Representative supported 5 cents in spending reductions for every dollar in spending increases.  The average Senator voted for 4 cents in spending reductions for every dollar in spending increases.

B.        Who Is More Responsible?

In 1994, Republicans campaigned against a "tax-and-spend" Democratic majority on a platform of making Congress more accountable and less costly to taxpayers.  Republicans argued that they could cut taxes, eliminate wasteful government programs, and balance the budget.  Twelve years later, Democrats were portraying themselves as the party of fiscal discipline and were lampooning Republicans for runaway spending and a burgeoning national debt.  The war of words was fought not only on the campaign trail but also in the halls of Congress as Members trumpeted their tax and budget credentials. Strangely, those trumpets did not blare as often in the 109^th Congress, as the table below shows.

This 23 percent decline in the lexicon of fiscal discipline is difficult to explain.  After all, Democrats regained control of Congress by presenting themselves – in part – as the party that would enforce budgetary strictures in Washington.  Yet, during the 109^th Congress both House and Senate Republicans supported smaller spending increases and more spending reductions than did Democrats.  In the House, where the average Member backed increases of $305.1 billion and reductions of $15.4 billion, the average Republican supported $301.6 billion in increases and $22.2 billion in cuts.  In contrast, the average Democrat voted for $309.0 billion in new spending and $7.9 billion in cuts.  However, in the 106^th and 107^th Congresses, Democrats did have lower net spending agendas, excluding mandatory spending, than did House Republicans ($130.6 billion versus $143.7 billion, and $183.7 billion versus $200.5 billion, respectively).  Perhaps the fear of lawmakers in either party to push the issue on the floors of the House and Senate – where, unlike paid advertising, any remark can trigger an immediate rejoinder – was one factor in this pullback for the war of words.

It is interesting to note that the 22 Republican incumbents who were defeated for reelection to the House had net voting agendas that were $2.1 billion higher than members of their party who were returned to the House, albeit in the minority for the 110^th Congress ($281.9 billion versus $279.8 billion).  Although the differences among the losers' and their GOP colleagues' averages were comparatively small, they do seem to demonstrate that going to bat for a bigger federal budget was of little help to endangered incumbents.  At the very least, the figures suggest that there might have been minimal danger in running for reelection on a platform that was more frugal.

Table 2 shows averages for all House Members by Congress, while Table 3 contains data on party averages by Congress.

In the Senate, where near party-line voting is common, Republicans tended to back less new spending than their colleagues across the aisle ($346.8 billion versus $404.3 billion each).  Republican Senators also voted to cut more spending than did their Democratic counterparts ($21.0 billion compared to $8.9 billion).  However, net voting agendas for both parties are substantially larger than they were in 105^th Congress ($40.0 billion for Republicans and $58.7 billion for Democrats) and the 107^th Congress ($161.8 billion for Republicans and $299.2 billion for Democrats).

As in the House, the Republican Senators who were defeated for reelection had net voting agendas that were slightly above the average of those who will be serving in the 110^th Congress ($329.3 billion compared to $325.3 billion). 

While net spending agendas in the Senate for the 109^th Congress were below those of the 108^th Congress, they have climbed since the 105^th Congress, when the average Senator supported just $48.4 billion in new spending.

Table 4 highlights Senate averages since the 105^th Congress.  Party averages by Congress are contained in Table 5.

Chart 1 shows the rapid decline in support for lower federal expenditures, as the number of spending cutters has fallen to zero from a high of 512 Members in 1996.

Although net voting agendas for the 109^th Congress are lower than those of the previous Congress, it is important to realize that this does not reflect an absolute reduction in spending, but rather a lower rate of increase.

C. Voices versus Votes: Did They Mean What They Said?

With Members of Congress proclaiming their commitment to fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail, one might expect those words to translate into action.  The reality is somewhat different, however.  During the 109^th Congress, the House of Representatives voted on 24 spending cut amendments worth approximately $13.3 billion in potential savings.  Both the number and value of the reductions were lower than those offered in the 108^th Congress, when House Members considered 32 spending cut amendments totaling $21.9 billion.  In any case, the House was unable to pass a single one of the amendments contained in Table 6.

During the 109^th Congress, Senators voted on seven spending cut amendments, the same number as in the 108^th Congress.  However, the 109^th Senate voted on only $16.0 billion in total reductions, compared to $41.4 billion in the previous Congress.  In contrast to the House, the Senate was able to pass three spending reduction amendments during the First Session of the 109^th Congress, but did not adopt any during the Second Session.  In the end, however, all action proved futile as none of the cuts made it into law.

Tables 6 and 7 detail the spending cuts that were considered in each chamber during the 109^th Congress.

III.      Conclusion

The day after any election, political pundits often point out that winning a campaign is one thing and that governing is quite another.  When discussing changes in voting patterns captured by the VoteTally system with Republican Congressional staffers during their time in the majority, NTUF personnel were often told that the GOP was responsible for governing and that meant passing legislation. And, as was frequently the case, that legislation was more and more expensive to taxpayers.  This situation was not necessarily preordained. Bearing in mind that VoteTally measures only spending changes, Congressional leaders could have attempted to muster majorities on behalf of freezing outlays or restricting their rate of growth more vigorously. Yet, by the end of the 109^th Congress, Republicans would have been hard-pressed to list any programs that they had eliminated and had not been resurrected in one form or another over the past 12 years.  Instead, the GOP would likely have highlighted the areas where funding had increased – even above what the President had requested.  Somewhere along the way, the echoes of the "revolution" faded away. 

Now, Democrats must attempt to live up to their campaign promises of spending restraint and earmark reform.  With concerns about pork-filled continuing resolutions and emergency spending bills, as well as disagreements over what constitutes an "earmark," Democrats have quite a challenge from without and within during the months to come in the 110^th Congress.

Jeff Dircksen
Director of Congressional Analysis