In an effort to reduce government funding, House Republicans have proposed spending cuts for the next decade, which will be needed to do the math on the new debt ceiling plan. But these restrictions can also make housing more difficult.
The reason? The cap would keep Republicans from increasing military spending, as many say, or protecting Pentagon programs and veterans by forcing deep cuts elsewhere.
“If you start having some categories or programs that are harmless, that means everything else on average goes deeper,” said Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
The proposed annual cap would apply for the next 10 years to the allocation, money lawmakers give each year to agencies like the Department of Defense or the Department of Health and Human Services. While the majority of federal spending is on autopilot with Social Security and Medicare, lawmakers battle each year to decide whether to increase defense or non-defense spending or, often, both.
At The text of the bill was released Wednesdayannual discretionary spending from October 1 will fall back to the level set in 2022. Every year after that, the amount will increase by 1%, which is lower than the historical inflation rate and lower. annual rate of 5%. from recent price increases.
“If you start having some harmless categories or programs, that means everything else on average will be cut deeper.”
– Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy, Center for American Progress
The advantage for Republicans is that staying within the limits for the next nine years will result in spending cuts that will make significant progress in reducing the budget deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s upcoming project save about $3.2 trillion compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline.
But because the bill doesn’t specify whether those cuts will be implemented, lawmakers will have to make that decision when they sign bills that fund individual departments. And that’s where the math gets tricky.
Simply applying the same reductions to defense and non-defense programs would result in a 28% cut in two by 2033 after adjusting for inflation and population growth, according to Kogan.
The White House Office of Management and Budget came up short a different figure than the 22% cutbut only in the first year and also assuming Pentagon funding will at least match this year’s level when non-defense spending returns.
“The speaker’s plan raises important questions for dozens of House Republicans,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, on Thursday. “Would he vote to kill manufacturing jobs in his own home district and shift manufacturing away from China? And would he vote to cut benefits for veterans in his own district?
“Would he vote to kill manufacturing jobs in his own home district and shift manufacturing away from China? And would he vote to cut benefits for veterans in his own district?
– Karine Jean-Pierre, White House press secretary
Jean-Pierre even went so far as to call out individual members of Congress, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Mike Carey (R-Ohio), over why they support such cuts.
In a speech unveiling the plan, McCarthy dismissed concerns about the depth of the spending cuts.
“These spending limits are not draconian. They are responsible,” he said. “Federal spending exploded in the last two years by 17%. And that doesn’t include the trillions in spending in the COVID era.
Kogan said the math gets even worse for non-defense programs if other assumptions are made. If, for example, Republicans want to protect against cuts in military spending and veterans programs – two items that are popular in many red districts – the percentage of cuts for all other programs will increase from 28% to 58% in 2033.
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they will only have 60% less staff or be able to do 60% less research,” he said. “[National Institutes of Health] doing a lot of cancer research. So, does that mean 60% fewer projects are funded?
“These spending limits are not draconian. They are responsible.”
– House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
That will only allow defense and veterans spending to grow with inflation and population growth over the next decade. But with defense hawks worried about the prospect of conflict with China over Taiwan and a history of annual defense increases averaging more than 5% a year since 2018, the Pentagon’s budget will grow above the baseline if House Republicans have their way.
Allowing a 5% increase in defense spending each year would increase the non-defense cut to 91%, Kogan said.
“This is not a serious proposal,” he said.
The president of the Committee on a Responsible Federal Budget, Maya MacGuineas, disagreed. In a statement after the plan was released Wednesday, he said, “This is a reasonable proposal, which will result in significant savings at a time when the country desperately needs it.”
But with 18 House Republicans coming from congressional districts won by President Joe Biden in 2020 and McCarthy only being able to lose four and still push the package through the House, it is not clear that the GOP leadership will be able to apply the necessary votes, especially if the party is moderate. balk. Democrats have signaled that the plan will die by the time it reaches the Senate, giving vulnerable House members an incentive to vote for anything they can easily use in 2024.
On the opposite side of the party, some Republican hardliners have began pushing for changes in plans, said the language in the work requirements for some federal benefits does not go far enough. If they succeed in getting the issue reopened, it could embolden moderate Republicans to seek change.
“I would think they would be unpopular,” Kogan said of the possible cuts, “because the costs are extreme, and the things they’re asking for are very onerous.”