Proposed House GOP Non-Security Discretionary Cuts: Deeper Than They Appear

February 7, 2011 at 12:26 pm

The cuts in non-security discretionary programs required by a proposal from House Republican leaders are deeper than you might think, as we explained in a report late last week.

GOP leaders say their plan would cut this category of funding by 9 percent.  In fact, non-security programs – from K-12 education to biomedical research, food safety to the FBI – would shrink for the rest of the year, on average, by 15.4 percent below current funding under the continuing resolution (which expires March 4) and 19.4 percent below what President Obama proposed for fiscal year 2011.  That’s because much of the fiscal year will be over by the time Congress must act on the spending cuts.

We also know that not every category of spending will face the average cut, per the funding allocation – known as the 302(b) – that the House Appropriations Committee will likely make for its 12 Appropriations Subcommittees.  Transportation and housing programs would be cut by more than one quarter, while the costs of running Congress would be cut less than 4 percent.  Further, much more radical spending cuts, as proposed by the Republican Study Committee, may become part of the House proposal once it reaches the House floor.

Other key findings of our report:

  • If the cuts were for an entire year, they would be close to $100 billion below the President’s proposal for 2011.
  • Defense spending, not including war funding, would increase relative to its current funding level.
  • The current 2011 funding level and last year’s level do not include funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or from legislation to bail out financial and other institutions.

Print Friendly

More About James Horney

James Horney

Jim Horney is the Vice President for Federal Fiscal Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in federal budget issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Brian #
    1

    Am I reading that chart correctly-Transportation/HUD would actually see a 15% increase?!? If that’s not a typo, I’m guessing the increase is entirely on the Transportation side.

    • Brian #
      2

      Never mind-I see elsewhere on the site that the negative signs are there. On the graph here, they’re barely visible on the Transportation/HUD row.



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.



 characters available