Budget Vote Proves House GOP Can’t Do Anything Big in 2014

Overcoming the Goldilocks complex could be tough in an election year.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, presents his budget plan during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on March 12, 2013 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Tim Alberta
Add to Briefcase
Tim Alberta
April 16, 2014, 3:31 p.m.

Last week’s budget vote demon­strated why House Re­pub­lic­ans are un­likely to ac­com­plish any­thing sig­ni­fic­ant on the le­gis­lat­ive front in 2014.

The House GOP this elec­tion year is suf­fer­ing from something of a Goldilocks com­plex, in which some mem­bers dis­miss any giv­en pro­pos­al as too hot, and oth­ers com­plain it’s too cold, while only a shrink­ing ma­jor­ity say it’s just right. To pass any­thing without Demo­crat­ic sup­port, Re­pub­lic­ans have pre­cious little mar­gin for er­ror and must strike a bal­ance to sat­is­fy mem­bers on both sides of the party’s ideo­lo­gic­al di­vide.

They achieved it in passing Rep. Paul Ry­an’s fisc­al blue­print — but barely.

The an­nu­al budget vote has largely been an un­event­ful af­fair since Re­pub­lic­ans took back the ma­jor­ity in 2011. In fact, the pro­pos­als put forth by Ry­an, eas­ily the most pop­u­lar and well-re­spec­ted Re­pub­lic­an in the House, have rep­res­en­ted is­lands of con­sensus amid wa­ters churned by in­tern­al strife. GOP law­makers have largely set aside ideo­lo­gic­al battles and ral­lied around Ry­an’s ef­forts, which are gov­ern­ing blue­prints that achieve the party’s goal of bal­an­cing the budget.

This time was dif­fer­ent. A re­cord num­ber of Re­pub­lic­ans — 12 — voted against Ry­an’s pro­pos­al, and the op­pos­i­tion came from all corners of the party. Some mod­er­ates thought it slashed too much spend­ing; some con­ser­vat­ives thought it didn’t cut enough; oth­ers voted against it for a vari­ety of polit­ic­al or ideo­lo­gic­al pur­poses.

On top of that, a bloc of con­ser­vat­ives were temp­ted to join the op­pos­i­tion to send a mes­sage to GOP lead­er­ship about a man­euver — some called it “sneaky” — to pass a con­tro­ver­sial bill by voice vote weeks earli­er. Had only sev­en more GOP mem­bers de­fec­ted, Ry­an’s budget would have been de­feated on the House floor, and Re­pub­lic­ans would have gone home for the two-week East­er re­cess em­bar­rassed and fa­cing fresh spec­u­la­tion about a shakeup in lead­er­ship.

Iron­ic­ally, dis­aster was aver­ted when some of the con­fer­ence’s most re­li­able “no” votes wound up sup­port­ing the budget, edging a vic­tory for Ry­an (and GOP lead­er­ship). Law­makers like Justin Amash of Michigan, Joe Bar­ton of Texas, and Tim Huel­skamp of Kan­sas, all of whom had voted against pre­vi­ous it­er­a­tions of the Ry­an budget, sup­por­ted this year’s ver­sion.

Still, the epis­ode laid bare the chal­lenges GOP lead­er­ship faces in at­tempt­ing to pass any­thing of sig­ni­fic­ance this year. With no Demo­crat­ic sup­port ex­pec­ted for ma­jor GOP pro­pos­als, Re­pub­lic­ans must man­euver very care­fully to se­cure the 218 Re­pub­lic­an votes needed for pas­sage (as­sum­ing every eli­gible mem­ber votes).

The Amashes, Bar­tons, and Huel­skamps of the con­fer­ence voted for the GOP budget. But would they, and like-minded law­makers, as­sist lead­er­ship in passing a health care al­tern­at­ive? An un­em­ploy­ment bill? An im­mig­ra­tion-re­form pack­age? His­tory sug­gests that, un­less those meas­ures were tailored to ap­pease the far-Right of the House GOP, the an­swer would be no.

Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship of­fi­cials have long been bear­ish on their abil­ity in an elec­tion year to piece to­geth­er that GOP co­ali­tion — es­pe­cially when vot­ing on big, con­tro­ver­sial pieces of le­gis­la­tion — and have there­fore settled on a strategy of passing safe meas­ures aimed at unit­ing the party and keep­ing the spot­light on the short­com­ings of Obama­care. That ap­proach was val­id­ated by the budget vote.

For ex­ample, Ry­an’s budget, with its steep cuts to do­mest­ic spend­ing pro­grams, proved too con­ser­vat­ive for sev­er­al House Re­pub­lic­ans seek­ing reelec­tion in com­pet­it­ive dis­tricts. Rep. Chris Gib­son of New York, who faces a stiff Demo­crat­ic chal­lenge from ven­ture cap­it­al­ist Sean Eldridge, voted no. So did 10-term Rep. Frank Lo­Bi­ondo of New Jer­sey, who’s bra­cing for one of the toughest reelec­tion fights of his ca­reer. Both said the budget slashed too much spend­ing, and both oc­cupy vul­ner­able seats that could swing to­ward the Demo­crats with one risky vote.

On the flip side, for some GOP law­makers, Ry­an’s budget was not suf­fi­ciently con­ser­vat­ive. This was em­bod­ied by the Geor­gia del­eg­a­tion, where Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gin­grey, and Jack King­ston are fight­ing for the right­ward flank in this year’s Sen­ate primary. Pre­dict­ably, all three voted against the budget for not cut­ting deep enough, fast enough. (Broun and Gin­grey had voted against pre­vi­ous Ry­an budget; King­ston, des­per­ate to demon­strate his ul­tracon­ser­vat­ive bona fides, joined them this time.)

And then, as al­ways, there was the re­li­able op­pos­i­tion from a pre­dict­ably un­pre­dict­able bloc of Re­pub­lic­ans who will skate to reelec­tion in their dark-red dis­tricts, yet love to buck their party line non­ethe­less. In this camp are mod­er­ate Rep. Dav­id McKin­ley of West Vir­gin­ia, who re­jects Ry­an’s steep Medi­care cuts; liber­tari­an-lean­ing Rep. Thomas Massie of Ken­tucky, who said the budget didn’t slash enough spend­ing; and Rep. Aus­tin Scott of Geor­gia, who said he pre­ferred the Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee’s far-right al­tern­at­ive.

In the end, Ry­an’s stand­ing with­in the con­fer­ence made it nar­rowly pos­sible to pass something that faced op­pos­i­tion from both sides of the ideo­lo­gic­al spec­trum. But it’s not likely to hap­pen again. After all, if it was that hard to build con­sensus for a budget that achieves a laun­dry list of long-held GOP pri­or­it­ies, ima­gine the dif­fi­culty of find­ing the sweet spot on something more com­plex, such as a health care al­tern­at­ive (which Re­pub­lic­ans were prom­ised a vote on this year).

Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship re­cog­nizes the Goldilocks com­plex. And, hav­ing barely es­caped last week’s budget vote, they un­der­stand bet­ter than ever the dif­fi­culty of get­ting it just right.

What We're Following See More »
Clinton Up 9 in USA Today Poll; Up 3 According to Fox
18 hours ago

A new USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds Clinton leads Trump by 9 points nationwide, 47% to 38%. A Fox News national poll has Clinton up just three points, 44% to 41% over Trump.

Cruz: Eight Justices Could Be an Ongoing Situation
20 hours ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

DNC Sues RNC Over Trump’s Rigged Vote Comments
23 hours ago

The Democratic National Committee sued the Republican National Committee in U.S. District Court in New Jersey for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged." The DNC claims "that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities."

Clinton Foundation Staffers Steered Biz to Bill
1 days ago

"Two chief fundraisers for the Clinton Foundation pressed corporate donors to steer business opportunities to former President Bill Clinton as well, according to a hacked memo published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. The November 2011 memo from Douglas Band, at the time a top aide to Mr. Clinton, outlines extensive fundraising efforts that Mr. Band and a partner deployed on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and how that work sometimes translated into large speaking fees and other paid work for Mr. Clinton."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
1 days ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.