Spending Caps: To Bust or Not To Bust?
On May 5, 2015, the Senate followed the House’s lead and voted 51-48 to approve the conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution. In other words, Congress did its job and passed a joint budget plan for the first time since 2009.
While this is a welcome change from many years during which Congress routinely funded the government through a series of stop-gap funding measures, it is a bit early for lawmakers to pat themselves on the back. In order to complete its return to regular order, Congress must now pass the 12 annual appropriations bills before September 30. Given the controversy that accompanied the budget resolution and the first two appropriations bills considered by the House, lawmakers have their work cut out for them.
As of May 13, the House had approved two appropriations bills, Energy and Water Development and Military Construction and Veteran’s Affairs, while floor action was pending on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. The first two bills, which are normally non-controversial, were unusually contentious. Democrats are reluctant to vote for bills that adhere to spending caps under the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), which established a FY 2016 limit of $1.017 trillion for discretionary spending. The White House issued veto threats for the first two bills, and stated that it will do so for “any other legislation the implements the current Republican budget framework.” These veto threats presumably give Democrats the political cover they need to continue opposing funding bills, meaning that Republicans will have to remain united in voting for passage, which may prove more difficult for some of the remaining bills.
Despite the president’s rhetoric about the draconian nature of the BCA spending caps, spending is slated to increase by slightly less than 2 percent annually from FY 2016 through FY 2021. The invective toward sequestration from Republicans focuses on defense spending, which is scheduled to increase from $521 billion in FY 2015 to $523 billion in FY 2016.
As both public and private sources have pointed out, mismanagement and duplication are ubiquitous throughout the federal government. CAGW’s 2015 Prime Cuts includes 601 recommendations that would save taxpayers $639 billion in the first year and $2.6 trillion over five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) annually publishes a report highlighting duplication and overlap in federal programs. GAO’s 2015 report identified “12 new areas of fragmentation, overlap or duplication in federal programs and activities. GAO also identified 12 other opportunities for cost savings or revenue enhancement.” These findings build upon the 380 recommended actions to Congress and the administration in past reports, of which 169 were addressed, 179 partially addressed, and 90 not addressed.
In the 2014 Wastebook, former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) identified 100 “silly, unnecessary, and low priority projects” totaling $25 billion. Even President Obama’s FY 2016 budget includes “101 cuts, consolidations and savings proposals to save over $14 billion in 2016.” Given the plethora of sources showing where efficiencies in federal spending could be achieved, it is difficult to sympathize with those who say that there is no way to avoid the “devastating” effects of sequestration.
Instead of abdicating one of its primary responsibilities, members of Congress should hold the line on spending and prove to taxpayers that they are capable of effectively shepherding their resources. At a time when the national debt exceeds $18.2 trillion, it is essential that every possible step be taken to put the nation back on a sustainable fiscal path.
– P.J. Austin
