N.C. Rep. Price criticizes idea to allow cuts to mandatory spending

Exasperated by regular partisan stalemates in Congress, U.S. Rep. David Price – North Carolina’s only congressman on the committee that controls the federal government’s purse strings – directed strong criticism this week toward those who suggest changing U.S. House of Representatives procedures in the name of spending controls.

“Conservative Republicans are pushing this idea as a means of catering to the most right-wing supporters, unrelenting in their desire to slash entitlements and slash our nation’s social safety net,” Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill, said during a House Rules subcommittee hearing, where he was a guest offering testimony.

Thursday’s hearing reviewed proposals from Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of California and Morgan Griffith of Virginia. Their proposals – which fellow Republicans raised concerns about during the hearing – would modify a procedural rule that restricts members of Congress from easily cutting some spending on mandatory programs.

Examples of mandatory programs include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for veterans and federal employees, and food stamps.

“If the majority wants to cut entitlements, they should put a bill on the floor and hold a straight up-or-down vote,” Price testified. “They can do that tomorrow. Everyone in this room knows such an effort would fail, because it would be at odds with the will of the overwhelming majority of the American public.”

Later, Price warned the proposal could lead to more political gridlock, more threats of government shutdowns and further frustration from voters over legislative dysfunction.

“The congressional budget and appropriations process has broken down to the point of dysfunction. . . . But I believe this is truly a case in which the proposed remedy would be a good deal worse than the disease,” Price said.

At issue is mandatory spending on entitlement programs – which make up more than half of the federal budget. Those programs operate annually without much room, under federal law, for cuts or increases. The programs function under laws that govern who pays into the system and who may draw benefits from it.

Actual spending on programs such as Social Security and veterans benefits fluctuates based on how many people are covered. Congress can rein in such spending by changing the benefit formulas or requirements for getting benefits, but a simple line-item cut to mandatory spending isn’t so straightforward.

In contrast, members of Congress have direct control over what’s called discretionary spending – government programs that may be cut or expanded through legislation more easily.

McClintock and Griffith want to treat mandatory spending programs more like discretionary ones.

“With our federal government $19 trillion in debt, we cannot afford to shield mandatory spending from our efforts to curb wasteful spending and to rein in a ballooning bureaucracy,” Griffith said in his prepared testimony.

McClintock echoed Griffith’s sentiment, saying, “Spending is exploding. The only way to control it is to change the underlying laws, something that today’s divided government makes virtually impossible.”

Price, though, balked at the motivations behind the proposal. He charged that such an idea from McClintock and Griffith amounts to scapegoating a long-standing rule used during the federal budgetary process in order to “placate the most conservative elements of the Republican Party.”

Appropriations bills, Price argued, have been intentionally kept separate from mandatory spending measures to make sure the government stays open despite other legislative impasses caused by differences in political ideology.

The Morning Consult – a Washington political news site and polling organization – reported that Thursday’s subcommittee hearing turned out to be “an unexpected place to find Republicans grappling with their party’s identity.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows told the Morning Consult that McClintock’s idea wouldn’t be enough to deal with an out-of-control budget. Meadows, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus from Cashiers, North Carolina, has been one of the most outspoken Republicans against government spending.

U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. – a senior member on the House Budget and Appropriations committees – agreed with some of Price’s criticisms Thursday. The proposed changes, Cole said, would “involve appropriations bills in more controversies” and greatly slow down the process for Congress to keep the government running.

Instead of working to change particular House rules related to spending, Congress could better tackle the government’s fiscal problems by coming up with long-term solutions, said Phil LaRue, a legislative analyst with the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group focused on budgetary issues.

The proposed rule change discussed Thursday would open the door for large cuts but would offer little sustainability because lawmakers would have to debate major programs such as Social Security every year, said LaRue.

LaRue called McClintock and Griffith’s goal laudable but not comprehensive in dealing with the nation’s growing debt and spending problems.

This story was originally published April 15, 2016 at 4:16 PM with the headline "N.C. Rep. Price criticizes idea to allow cuts to mandatory spending."