Republican Voters Dismayed by Biggest Spending Rise Since 1990

By Brian Faler

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Republican voters are angry, not for the first time, at big-spending politicians in Washington. This year, their wrath is aimed at their own party.

The Republican-controlled Congress heads into the Nov. 7 elections having increased federal spending this year by 9 percent -- the most since 1990 -- to about $2.7 trillion, according to projections from the White House Office of Management and Budget. The agency estimates government spending will grow to 20.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2006 from 18.5 percent when President George W. Bush took office in 2001.

``We've strayed a long way from the principles the party was founded upon,'' said Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican.

Republicans need a big turnout by their core supporters if they are to avoid losing their majorities in the House of Representatives and, possibly, the Senate. Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, said those core supporters are the very voters who are most likely to be angered by the increased spending, and who may stay home in protest.

``It's one of a handful of reasons why Republicans are discouraged,'' Ayres said. ``I don't know what you can say that will mollify the Republican base on this subject. You're better off talking to them about other subjects.''

Disciplining the Budget

Some Republicans lawmakers defend their party's record on spending.

``I think we can make a pretty good case that we have tried to discipline the budget,'' said Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Budget Committee chairman. He and fellow lawmakers say they have kept a tight lid on the ``discretionary'' portions of the budget -- the parts that must be annually approved by Congress -- that aren't connected to defense and security.

Most of the extra discretionary spending, the lawmakers say, went to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security and the Hurricane Katrina clean-up.

OMB data show that non-security discretionary spending, excluding emergency funding measures, has increased every year since 2002: by 6 percent that year, 5.7 percent the next, 4.3 percent in 2004, and 2.8 percent last year. This year, it is projected to increase by 0.5 percent.

Republican lawmakers say they are confident their constituents will stick with them because the Democrats are even less committed to restraint.

``They may have some concerns with some of us,'' said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican. ``But I think they'll understand that things will be much worse, not better, if they elect our friends on the other side.''

Tax Revenue

While government data show the budget deficit will narrow to $296 billion this year, the smallest since 2002, OMB says that is largely because of an unanticipated increase in tax revenue that isn't likely to recur next year. And lawmakers so far haven't made sizable cuts in next year's spending plans.

Earlier this year, Bush proposed a package of measures to limit spending, including squeezing entitlements for the second consecutive year, essentially freezing non-security ``discretionary'' outlays and giving him a line-item veto to challenge specific items in broad spending measures.

Since then, lawmakers have dropped the proposed entitlement cuts, and the line-item veto request has stalled in the Senate. Republicans have also put off most of the annual spending measures funding domestic programs until after the election. One of the spending measures, which pays for Congress itself, would provide senators with a 9 percent increase in their personnel and expense accounts.

Between now and the elections, lawmakers are planning to focus on security measures and possibly tax cuts, which they believe will appeal to their core supporters.

`Out of Control'

At least some of the party's staunchest allies aren't assuaged.

``Advocates of limited government and less spending can point to virtually no successes reducing the growth of government,'' said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, which advocates smaller government. ``Spending continues to grow out of control.''

Gregg said one reason spending hasn't been brought down more is that Democrats have repeatedly opposed attempts to cut entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security that are growing quickly and are politically sensitive. Those three programs now consume 39 percent of the government's resources.

``Certainly, I've made the case that we have to look at entitlements, and others have too,'' he said. ``But when you look across the aisle, you have to say they're not willing to address that.''

`A Lot of Nerve'

``Republicans control the House, Senate and White House,'' said Senator Kent Conrad, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. ``They have a lot of nerve trying to blame Democrats for the explosion of deficits and debt on their watch.''

Between 1996 and 2001, when Democratic President Bill Clinton was in the White House and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, government spending declined from 20.3 percent of gross domestic product to 18.5 percent.

The House Appropriations Committee, which says it has slashed the number of pet projects known as earmarks that lawmakers insert into spending measures, has begun circulating lists of amendments in which Democrats supported higher spending.

Both chambers are considering various procedural changes to identify the sponsors of earmarks, who for now can insert the funding anonymously. With those proposals mostly stalled, some lawmakers said the earmarks have come to symbolize to voters the party's failure to rein in spending.

``Our Republican base is not happy,'' said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and possible 2008 presidential candidate. ``They tell me that every place I go.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at bfaler@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 15, 2006 00:02 EDT

		Email this article Printer friendly format