House leaders, trying to break the impasse stalling the chamber’s budget and appropriations process, are putting forward a new plan designed to get conservative support for a budget that sets FY17 discretionary spending at $1.070 trillion, the cap created by last fall’s budget deal.
The plan would combine the traditional congressional budget resolution with formal legislative bill text that would achieve $30 billion in savings in the first two years and $170 billion over ten. It would not be a strictly congressional resolution as budgets are, but rather a bill that could theoretically be signed into law. A “leadership source” explained the plan to Politico, saying:
“[T]he budget then couldn’t take effect without the mandatory savings, which target Medicaid and Obamacare, also being enacted. Such a move would allow conservatives to claim they voted for a budget with less spending than prescribed by the Obama-Boehner deal. But members of the conference’s right flank were cool to the proposal. They noted it was unlikely the package would be passed by the Senate or signed into law by Obama.”
That fact that this new proposal is intended to gain the support of conservatives for the $1.070 trillion budget number without providing a way of actually achieving the goals they have laid out, invites the question: Why is this plan being put forward? If this is simply an exercise to get conservatives on record supporting a budget (any budget, even one with ancillary provisions) at 1070 in order to weaken their resolve to oppose efforts later this month to move appropriations bills written to the 1070 level, then it is a poor exercise and a waste of time.
House Republicans have serious policy differences on how to move forward with this year’s budget and appropriations process. Those differences can’t be papered over or avoided with proposals that don’t address the fundamental disagreements in question.
This proposed plan does nothing to address that fundamental disagreement.
What’s more, all budget resolutions contain “illustrative policy options” to achieve its underlying assumptions. Adding specific bill text to achieve some of those savings (though in this instance, representing less than 2.5% of the proposed savings contained in the budget), and having members vote on those specific savings, can rightfully be seen as a positive step; however, contrary to some talking points, sidecar legislation spelling out specific cuts is not revolutionary. Back in 2012, the House passed follow-up legislation to its budget laying out $310 billion in specific deficit reductions. That legislation was not coupled with a meaningful strategy to enact those cuts, and thus was not taken up in the Senate and died a quiet death. This plan appears likely to meet the same fate.
To be clear, the cuts that are reportedly included in the bill are generally worthwhile and while this bill certainly has merits in isolation, it does not in any way change or address the fundamental issue at hand. Conservatives in the House have made their demands clear: they will not vote for $1.070 trillion in discretionary spending, including appropriations written to that level, unless $30 billion in cuts are enacted.
Unless there is a strategy and path forward to getting this new plan through the Senate and signed into law by the President, conservatives in the House should continue to oppose the “1070” budget level and make clear that this plan doesn’t bind them to supporting appropriations going forward. In fact,they should continue to oppose those appropriations bills unless and until the bill’s cuts get signed into law.