Republican budget leaders announced a fiscal 2016 plan Tuesday that appeases the defense hawks in their party by nearly doubling wartime spending, but the move has prompted pushback from their most conservative flanks, highlighting the challenges ahead.
Nine conservative House Republicans who hosted a discussion with reporters shortly after the budget’s release said they want “to get to yes” on the GOP’s plan, but they raised concerns about the plan’s direction.
They questioned whether additional military spending has been properly vetted, noted that the sequester-immune account boosting military spending is not in line with the promises they made to their constituents to deliver a balanced budget, and pointed out that the added defense needs will require concessions to Democrats that will further distance the party from its political goals.
“Republicans are in the majority, but conservatives are not,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. But he added that the final bill will need to address conservatives’ concerns. “There are a lot more conservatives than are at this table today.”
The members were also doubtful that they could garner enough intra-party support for the blueprint to move the bill through on a process known as reconciliation, due to differences on spending within their party.
Reconciliation, if enough Republicans agree to it, would allow the budget to be passed on a simple majority, effectively cutting out Senate Democrats’ ability to block it.
“We need to make sure we are the party of fiscal conservatism,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. “I understand some of the concerns from defense hawks who want to blow through the [spending] caps. But I’m tired of seeing gimmicks in the budget process. I’m tired of seeing gimmicks in the legislative process.
“At the end of the day, if you want to increase spending on programs Republicans like, you are going to have to accept some compromise for Democrats. So for those who are pushing for higher spending, they’d better be prepared to go to higher spending on Democratic programs and possibly tax increases.”
In the 2016 plan, which House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., announced Tuesday, keeps the Defense Department’s baseline budget to the $523 billion sequester cap — but then adds another $94 billion in the wartime fund known as the overseas contingency operations account, which is not subject to sequester caps.
“That’s one of the issues I am having with the budget,” said Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho. “I think if you are going to plus up military spending you should have to do it within the budget — not in a separate [wartime] account. I think we have to ask the fundamental question, ‘what is all that money being spent on in the military? It’s not a question that Republicans are willing to ask.”
Price’s assurance that defense could be beefed up under a balanced budget also was questioned.
“I don’t know anybody who honestly believes we are going to balance the budget in 10 years. It’s all hooey,” said Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo. Buck said with winding down operations in Afghanistan and the end of the 2008 financial crisis, it is now time to make push difficult spending cuts to balance the budget.
“We continue to put off the pain,” Buck said.
Labrador said it’s not a question of defense as a priority, but the willingness to scrutinize defense spending.
“I want to protect the military as much as anybody. But it seems we have an unquestioning disregard for what its actually being spent in the military sometimes as Republicans, and I have a concern about that.
“So now what we are going to do is … put it in the [overseas contingency] account and we are going to forget about the promises that we made to our constituents that we are going to balance the budget,” Labrador said.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said he was “leaning toward yes” in supporting the additional Pentagon spending, but that he wanted to see the final bill. “Obviously we want to do everything we can for national defense, but we understand the dynamic we are in,” Jordan said.
