The Road to a Possible Government Shutdown: Who’s Not Willing to Compromise?

March 31, 2011 at 10:59 am

I noted recently how far the goal posts have moved in the debate over fiscal year 2011 discretionary appropriations.  Given the pronounced movement toward ever larger cuts — including media reports this morning that the White House has offered another $23 billion in cuts below those already enacted — it’s hard to understand why anyone would take seriously charges that Democrats have not moved on discretionary spending or are refusing to negotiate.  The charge that the impasse is Senate Democrats’ fault, because they have not passed a full-year 2011 appropriations bill, also rings hollow as explained below.

Let’s look at where we are now and how we got there.

Under the continuing resolution that expires April 8, discretionary funding is already $35 billion below the 2010 level, adjusted for inflation, and $51 billion below the level in the President’s 2011 budget.

Cutting another $23 billion would produce an overall discretionary funding level that is:

  • roughly three-fourths of the way from the level the President proposed in his 2011 budget to the level in H.R. 1 — the full-year appropriation bill that the House passed on February, which would cut discretionary funds by $102 billion below the President’s level, and that (as our analysis shows) would slash funds for programs from Head Start to college Pell Grants to ensuring safe drinking water;
  • $53 billion below the level proposed last year by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), which Senate Republicans unanimously supported last year (but which they now have walked away from, saying it doesn’t cut funding enough); and
  • almost exactly at the level that House Republican leaders themselves made on February 3, before Tea Party-affiliated members pushed Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Budget Chairman Paul Ryan to a more extreme position.

It makes little sense for anyone to claim that the White House and Senate Democrats have been unwilling to compromise on cuts in 2011 appropriations because they haven’t accepted H.R. 1.

It also makes little sense for House Republican leaders to blame Senate Democrats because the Senate hasn’t passed 2011 appropriation bills.  The Senate hasn’t passed them for a simple reason: Senate Republican leaders won’t let that occur.  With 60 votes needed to pass just about everything in the Senate, the 47 Republicans — apparently at the behest of their House Republican colleagues — have refused to allow any bill to pass that contains smaller cuts than those of H.R. 1.

As noted above, Senate Republicans last year insisted that 2011 appropriations adhere to the Sessions-McCaskill level.  They stuck to that position through last spring, summer, and early fall.  Senate Democratic leaders resisted for months but relented in September and agreed to work with Senate Republicans to produce a bipartisan bill at the Sessions-McCaskill level.

Senate Democratic and Republican appropriations staffs worked through October and November, producing a bill at the Sessions-McCaskill level that Senate Democratic leaders brought to the Senate floor in December.  But, by then, House Republicans and Tea Party activists had turned up the heat and Senator McConnell responded by withdrawing his blessing and threatening a filibuster.  As a result, the bill to fund the government at the Sessions-McCaskill level couldn’t get the 60 votes needed to pass.

That’s been the story of the fiscal 2011 appropriations cycle — a story of the goal posts being moved by Republican demands for ever deeper cuts; Democrats moving toward these deeper cuts over time; and Republicans charging that Democrats have not offered enough by way of cuts, that Democrats should be blamed for what has essentially been Senate Republicans’ refusal to allow 2011 appropriations bills to pass that chamber (unless the bills adopt the full level of cuts the Republican House wants), and that Democrats are to blame if the government shuts down.  It’s a tale worthy of George Orwell.

Print Friendly

More About Robert Greenstein

Robert Greenstein

Greenstein is the founder and President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. You can follow him on Twitter @GreensteinCBPP.

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

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Jim Kennedy #
    1

    This is a very sad tale, and one that illustrates the sort of incremental redefinition of reality by the media that we’ve grown wearily accustomed to. Each time the Republicans move the baseline point and bluster about the Democrats’ unwillingness to offer anything (more) the media portrays it as throuh it were factual. The public has a difficult time following the illogic and keeping track of the shifting starting point.

    What I would very much like to see is a group of progressive legislators putting forward with equal aggressiveness a series of budget proposals that reflect a coherent progressive vision and strategy and holding court for the media to explain why these proposals are fair and necessary and what kinds of positive outcomes will be accomplished (and negative ones averted) if these measures were enacted into law. The fact that they don’t stand a chance of passage is irrelevant. But they would help to define a stable and ethical baseline from which continued Republican shifting toward ever greater nastiness and distortion of public policy could be continually measured and shown.

    Your graphic is very revealing, but still reflects a defensive posture. “Hey look at all the stuff we’ve offered to give up to accommodate a right-wing vision we don’t believe in. It’s not fair.” America ought to be given a chance to see what the correct direction looks like in terms of concrete proposals. Maybe it’s time for the progressive team’s offense to take the field.

    • David #
      2

      Excellent, precise presentation and a great idea.
      I predict it will not happen without very broadbased nonpartisan support. It’s just too reasonable.
      It appears to me more and more that our two party system is a failure and is making democracy and capitalism incompatible.
      Thumbs up to you.



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.




8 − one =

 characters available