With the odds now in favor of Republican control of the House of Representatives, it is time, perhaps past time, to ask how much difference that control could make. The best way to examine that question is to look at what happened in a roughly comparable situation, after the 1994 election. And so I plan a series of posts describing what Republicans did after that election.
Since Republican and independent voters are most concerned with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama spending spree, I will begin with what Robert L. Livingston, who became chairman of the House Appropriations Committee after the election, was able to do to control spending.
The Wikipedia article tells some of the basics of his career— and much about the personal scandal that drove him from office — but nothing about his achievements as chairman. Fortunately, I have a 1998 Almanac of American Politics that includes a brief description of his achievements:
Yet for all the sturm and drang — he brought an alligator skinning knife, a "Cajun scalpel," to his first meeting — he got quite a job done. Appropriations started the 104th Congress by cutting the Democrats' spending bills, then cut non-defense spending FY96 spending by $5.5 billion — very much contrary to precedent. After the bruising battle over the budget, when Bill Clinton vetoed many appropriations bills, Livingston and his committee allowed spending increases for FY97. But comparing the Democrats' last bills (FY95) and Livingston's latest, non-defense spending fell from $246 billion to $235 billion, while defense rose only from $262 to $265 billion. Total discretionary spending was something like $50 billion less than what it would have been under Democratic projections. (p. 628)
(FY = fiscal year.)
Those who understand how most government budgeting is done — in increments or, very seldom, decrements, from last year's budget — will understand that saving $50 billion once is likely to set a baseline so that nearly the same amount can be saved in succeeding years.
Those who have studied budgeting in other industrial democracies will be especially impressed by Livingston's achievements. It is extraordinarily difficult to control spending when so many legislators, from Tokyo to Canberra to Oslo to Ottawa to London to Washington, D. C., believe they can buy votes with the right appropriations. (And they are often right to think so.)
A 2011 Republican Appropriations chairman would find it easier to duplicate Livingston's achievements in some ways, harder in other ways. The spending spree under Pelosi-Reid-Obama has been so wasteful, so political, that the chairman would find many easy targets. On the other hand, it is still unlikely that the Republicans will control the Senate, so the chairman would not have the help that Bob Dole and other Republican leaders gave Livingston.
Even so, I would guess that a Republican House Appropriations chairman could reduce spending by at least $100 billion from what it would be under a Democratic chairman — and that, as long as the party control doesn't shift back, could keep those savings year after year.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Newt Gingrich deserves some share of the credit for Livingston's budget achievements. Gingrich was able to make Livingston chairman, even though Livingston was only 5th in seniority, and then backed Livingston in the budget fights. Since Gingrich is Gingrich, he lost some of the credit he should have gotten for this achievement by poor politicking. But Gingrich wasn't the first to get snookered by Bill Clinton, who is, as we all know, one of the cleverest politicians to come along in many years.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 30, 2010 09:23 AM | Email ThisOh, I think we know.
Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 30, 2010 09:54 AM
There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward - and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to-the projected 2010-2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.
Couldn't find anything from Huffpo or Kos?
Keep in mind, the federal deficit for the month of July exceeded all of 2007.
But yeah. Let's trot out some pap from Newsweek as to how the Republicans could possibly be worse.
If you can find anything, from any source which addresses Jim's question ("it is time, perhaps past time, to ask how much difference that [Republican] control could make."), feel free to share.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 30, 2010 10:24 AMRepresentative Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is a sixteen-term member of Congress, representing the 41st district of California. Currently the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, his ethics issues stem primarily from the misuse of his position as chairman of the committee to steer hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks to family and friends in direct exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee. Rep. Lewis was included in CREW's 2006, 2007, and 2008 reports on congressional corruption.Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 30, 2010 12:26 PM
It certainly is strange that a list of "The 15 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" would include the most blatantly obvious democrat crooks isn't it?
Also strange is that 8 of 15 on the list are Democrats.
This means the fact that the ranking and likely Chairman of the House Appropriations committee if Republicans take over, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who has been under federal investigation since the Bush administration is an angel. Yep!
In general, Republicans have been much more willing to skip over seniority in choosing House chairmen than Democrats -- and much less willing than Speaker Pelosi to put ethically challenged congress critters in powerful positions.
So Lewis is hardly a lock for chair of the Appropriations committee, should the Republicans win control.
Two examples of Pelosi choices: After the Democrats had won a majority in the 2006 election, Pelosi pushed to make unindicted Abscam co-conspirator John Murtha majority leader. According to news accounts, Pelosi was willing to see the House Intelligence committee headed by Alcee Hastings -- who was impeached and removed from a judgeship by a Democratic congress for corruption.
Murtha was defeated in the Democratic caucus, for which small favor we may be grateful. Bad publicity forced Pelosi to give up the idea of making Alcee Hastings chair of the sensitive Intelligence committee.
Those two were among the most blatant ethical failures that Pelosi was willing to put in powerful positions, but they were not the only ones. Anyone who wants to go through the list of House chairmen can find chairmen who should not be in Congress, much less chairing committees. (At one time, I suggested, half jokingly, that Pelosi should go for a clean sweep and name only chairmen with ethical problems.)
(Pelosi was unwilling to see Jane Harman, who is more than qualified for the position, head the Intelligence committee. I don't know exactly why. According to news reports, the two have some sort of personal feud going, and Pelosi is unwilling to put that aside for the sake of the country.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 30, 2010 03:27 PMYou have no way of knowing whether in 2011 Republicans have been much more willing to skip over seniority in choosing House chairmen than Democrats.
What you refer to happened once, in 1995.
Do you deny that Lewis became Chairman of Appropriations as a result of seniority? Or that each Republican who succeeded Livingston got it on seniority?
Lewis may or may not be the chairman again, but he was once, and is next in line no to resume his position.
Maybe you can cite a House Republican leader regarding how committee chairs will be decided if Republicans retake the majority?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 30, 2010 03:37 PMHmm...looks like CREW is just a far left smear page that throws in the most blatantly obvious democrat crooks in an effort to look legit. "Submit Your Nominee"...indeed.
Posted by: Jack on August 30, 2010 07:10 PM
It is hard to compare the spending reductions in 1995 vs. today. The current administration is spending on steroids. There will also be the Senate to contend with, which may remain at slight Democratic majority. Rome wasn't built in a day and it will take a long time at least several elections to get our financial house in order, so careful on the lofty expectations. However, it is right to expect significant results - to roll back these statist redistributionist and jihadist programs and say goodbye to the nanny state that MikeBS worships - the religion of parasites...
Posted by: KDS on August 30, 2010 08:03 PMAnd of course the greatest challenge for Repubs (if they recapture one or both houses) would be to "reign in" the Marxist occupying our White House.
Public pressure (plus an R House and virtually dead even Senate) forced a moderate-left Bill Clinton to govern much closer the center than he preferred. Hard-left Obongo will certainly present a stiffer challenge for Republicans, particularly since he seems to care little about personal popularity or re-electability.
Perhaps House R's can capture Obongo the Aurocrat's attention by refusing to fund some of he and Pelosi's backdoor legislative "triumphs", including the thoroughly compromised and (all but) universally hated healthcare bill.
America needs incentives for private sector business to grow and hire. We do not need cradle to grave "life support" for urban indolents and illegal aliens.
Let's flush the toilet, folks.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 31, 2010 07:02 AM