Blue Dogs Bark: They Want Spending Caps

Attempting to place a leash on federal spending, members of the Blue Dog Coalition are introducing legislation this week to reinstate discretionary spending caps. Led by Reps. Frank Kratovil of Maryland and Travis Childers of Mississippi, the legislation would impose caps that would cut non-security spending by nearly 2 percent in each of the next three fiscal years and then freeze those levels for an additional two years. The plan also would require a two-thirds vote in both houses for any "emergency" spending that would breach those limits.

“Although cutting discretionary spending will no doubt mean making tough choices about where to tighten our belts, it is the common sense way to focus on today’s national priorities while preparing for the future,” said Kratovil.

The Blue Dogs argue that discretionary spending caps had a proven track record of controlling spending during the 1990s and that since the expiration of those caps in 2002, discretionary spending has increased more than $538 billion. The Kratovil-Childers proposal is a key part of the Blue Dog overall budget plan, The Blue Dog Blueprint for Fiscal Reform.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget believes that along with the recently enacted PAYGO requirements, spending caps like the ones proposed by Kratovil and Childers can be effective tools in controlling federal spending. For all the discussion about mandatory spending, discretionary spending makes up nearly 40 percent of the budget. And -- - this area of the budget has grown tremendously, over the past decade, especially –and in fact, at a faster pace than mandatory spending. We reported in a recent paper that, between 1999 and 2008, mandatory spending grew annually an average of 6.4 percent, from about $900 billion to almost $1.6 trillion. In contrast, discretionary spending grew by an average 7.5 percent each year – from less than $570 billion to over $1.1 trillion.

Barking Up the Wrong Treee

Sadly, the "Blue Dog Blueprint for Fiscal Reform" merely takes a sideways glance at the other half of the budget deficit: revenue.  In the 12th item on a 15-item list, there is a vague statement about "identify[ing] and report[ing] loopholes and inefficiencies within the current tax system," but nary a mention of the 2001-2003 Bush Tax Cuts that decimated the surpluses at the end of Clinton's presidency.

 

Another way to put the spending numbers cited above is that from 1999 to 2008, "mandatory spending grew 77.2%*.  In contrast, discretionary spending grew by 98.4%."  In that same time, however, revenues grew only 38.1%.  But in terms of GDP, total spending increased from 18.5% to 20.7% while revenue declined from 19.8% to 17.5%.

 

And spending is the problem?

 

*This excludes interest expense on the debt.  When that is factored in mandatory spending increased 63.5% from 1999 to 2008.

 

Craig Jennings

Director of Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch

Post a New Comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <p> <br><img><div><span><object><embed><blockquote> <!--break-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Insert a chart by placing [chart:nid] into your content, where nid is the node ID.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.