Election Day 'shellacking' prompts Dems to push slimmed-down spending bills

Senate Democrats, stinging from a tough election that cost them six seats, hope in the lame-duck session to pass spending bills that are dramatically slimmer than President Obama’s request.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is drafting an omnibus spending bill that sets government funding levels at $20 billion less than the administration requested, according to Senate aides.

Democratic lawmakers acknowledge it will be very difficult to increase discretionary spending even modestly in the wake of big Election Day losses, which the president described as a “shellacking.”

The Appropriations Committee will set the total cost of the omnibus bill between $1.106 and $1.108 trillion, less than the $1.124 trillion requested by Obama and the $1.114 compromise level set by the Appropriations panel earlier this year, Senate aides said.

The lower level was initially proposed by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), a freshman Democrat who could face a tough reelection fight in 2012.

“Any legislation will require the support of some Republicans to pass the Senate,” said a committee staffer. “That is not likely to happen if the top line is above the Sessions-McCaskill level.”

Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) wants to give Democratic leaders the option of passing new spending bills for 2011 instead of approving a stopgap measure freezing rates at 2010 levels.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will decide how to proceed after meeting with members of his conference in the weeks ahead.

Passing the annual spending bills at levels suggested by Sessions and McCaskill would result in an 0.7 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. Defense spending would increase by 1.5 percent.

“The bills, if they’re at the McCaskill-Sessions levels, are going to be very substantially below the amounts requested by the president,” said Scott Lilly, a former staff director of the House Appropriations Committee who now serves as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

The spending concessions have angered liberal advocates who say the government needs to spend more to stimulate the economy during a time of 9.6 percent unemployment.

“We need to be spending more to put people to work on direct hiring, on infrastructure and transportation,” said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future.

He added that federal revenue-sharing with the state governments will also stem the layoffs of teachers and other public-sector employees.

Borosage also said that cuts to discretionary spending would hamper the U.S. in its race with China and other countries to build a green-technology energy industry.

But Democratic leaders do not think it’s politically feasible to increase spending levels above the Sessions-McCaskill level in the wake of big midterm losses.

“The public is ahead of the political class on this issue,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said Tuesday.

“If you look at what was bothering independent voters, going back to the time of Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts all the way to the fall campaign, first and foremost it was the economy, and secondly, particularly for independents, it was concerns about the debt and the deficit and the unsustainable fiscal path,” Bayh added, referring to GOP Sen. Scott Brown’s (Mass.) surprising victory in the race to replace the late Ted Kennedy.

Bayh spoke at a press conference sponsored by the Peterson Foundation announcing the launch of a $6 million advertising campaign to spur public support for reducing the debt.

The Hill’s 2010 Midterm Election Poll of 10 battleground House districts found that 52 percent of independent voters called debt reduction a priority, compared to only 39 percent who said additional federal spending to create jobs was important.

A group of Republican senators would consider voting for an omnibus spending bill at the $1.108 trillion level proposed by Sessions and McCaskill, said a Senate aide.

But these GOP lawmakers, including members of the Appropriations Committee, are not likely to defy Senate Republican leaders if they try to keep their conference unified against the omnibus bill.

It could be a tricky political call for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee. His Republican colleagues on the panel want to pass new appropriations bills for fiscal 2011 so they can implement the decisions they’ve made over the past year.

But some Republicans in the conference may push for a stopgap spending measure that would keep the government funded for all of next year at 2010 levels — slightly lower than the Sessions-McCaskill proposal.

Conservative Republicans such as Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) could push for a continuing resolution that lasts only into the beginning of next year.

That would give newly empowered House Republicans an opportunity to propose drastically lower spending levels for the rest of 2011.

House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who is expected to become Speaker in the Republican-led House next year, has proposed reducing non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels. This could require many agencies to undergo a 20 percent budget cut.

Boehner argues, however, that reducing spending to pre-Obama levels could save taxpayers $100 billion in one year.

“There’s a realistic view that the chances of an omnibus moving are dicey at this point,” acknowledged a Senate aide, who said the lower levels suggested by Sessions and McCaskill may not sway the GOP leadership.

Lilly, the former House Appropriations Committee aide, said even a slimmed-down omnibus faces a tough fight in the Senate.

“It’s not possible to do it in the Senate without Republican support,” he said. “There are a significant number of Republicans who would like to make it happen and think it’s the right thing to do.”

---