Senate Dem Leader “Not Into” Cutting Spending:

Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “I’m not really into cutting (spending) right now.” (Kevin G. Hall and James Kuhnhenn, “Bush Vows To Repair Gulf Coast, Prompting Fears Of Deficit Spending,” Knight Ridder, 9/17/05)

Sen. Reid Warned Democrats Would Have Power Of The Purse. PBS’ Jim Lehrer: “[G]eorge W. Bush is still going to be president of the United States. What is a Democratic Senate going to do about all of that?” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “Well, of course, Jim, if we had the majority, we have control of the pocketbook, the purse. That’s what our Constitution set up, is that the legislative branch of government controls the money. And this president, during the last six years, has had a carte blanche with this Republican-dominated Congress. He’s gotten everything that he’s wanted …” (PBS’s “Newshour,” 9/13/06)

Click Here To Watch Sen. Reid’s “Pocketbook” Warning.

Democrats Proposed Bloated Budgets:

Since 2001, House Democrats Have Pushed Five Alternative Budgets Totaling Nearly $1 Trillion In Additional Spending.(Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com/advancedsearch.do, Accessed 7/18/06)

This Extra Federal Spending Would Have Cost Each American Family $13,000. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.factfinder.census.gov, Accessed 7/11/06) 

House Democrats Recently Voted Against The Line Item Veto:

In June 2006, 156 House Democrats Voted Against A Legislative Line Item Veto. The legislative line item veto bill “[w]ould authorize the president to recommend to Congress that certain appropriations, direct [mandatory] spending, and targeted tax benefits be cancelled. The bill would establish a set of expedited procedures for the House and Senate to vote on the presidential proposals.” (H.R. 4890, CQ Vote #317: Passed 247-172: R 212-15; D 35-156; I 0-1, 6/22/06)

Savings Enacted By The House And Senate “[C]ould Be Used Only To Reduce The Deficit …”  (H.R. 4890, CQ Vote #317: Passed 247-172: R 212-15; D 35-156; I 0-1, 6/22/06)

Even Though They Had Voted Against Similar Measures In The Past:

In 1995, 37 Senate Democrats Voted For A Bill Similar To The President’s Proposal (Republicans Voted Against The Measure In Favor Of The Stronger Line Item Veto). (S. 4, CQ Vote #112: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 53-1; D 9-37, 3/23/95; Steven T. Dennis, “Bipartisan Praise For ‘Line-Item Veto,’” CQ Today, 3/6/06)

In 2004, 45 House Democrats Voted For A Measure That Is Similar To The Legislation The President Has Proposed. (H.R. 4663, CQ Vote #313: Rejected 174-237: R 129-89; D 45-147; I 0-1, 6/24/04)

In 1995, More Than 150 House Democrats Voted Two Times For A Bill Similar To The President’s Current Proposal (Republicans Voted Against The Measure In Favor Of The Stronger Line Item Veto). (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #90: Rejected 167-246: R 6-214; 160-32; I 1-0, 2/3/95; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #93: Rejected 156-266: R 0-223; D 155-43; I 1-0, 2/6/95)

In 1993, 33 House Democrats Voted To Make The President’s Rescissions Take Effect Unless Both Chambers Vote To Disapprove Them. (H.R. 1578, CQ Vote #146: Rejected 198-219: R 165-4; D 33-214; I 0-1, 8/29/93)

In 1994, 32 House Democrats, Voted To Make The President’s Rescissions Take Effect Unless Both Chambers Vote To Disapprove Them. (H.R. 460, CQ Vote #327: Rejected 205-218: R 173-0; D 32-217; I 0-1, 7/14/94)

A Few Democrats Said If Their Colleagues “Care[d] About Budget Deficits,” The Would Vote For The Bill:

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN): “[I] am planning on voting for the line item veto. I would suggest to my colleagues who care about budget deficits that that is the appropriate and consistent approach.” (Rep. Jim Cooper, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4437)

Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO): “[T]his will promote accountability. It will promote transparency. It is a small start. I believe that it balances the constitutional responsibilities between the President and the Congress …” (Rep. Mark Udall, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4478)

But Their Liberal Colleagues Continue To Oppose Measure For Partisan Reasons:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s Spokesman Admitted Democrats See A “Political Opportunity” In Line Item Veto Debate. Sen. Reid spokesman: “[Reid] saw a political opportunity, which he seized on …” (Greta Wodele, “Democrats Linking Line-Item Veto With Social Security,” National Journal’s CongressDaily, 6/29/06)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX): “I am trying to balance my prior line-item veto support with my desire not to expand the power of a president who already has seized more executive power than anyone in American history.” (Tara Copp, “House May Reinstate Line-Item Veto,” Austin American-Statesman, 6/22/06)

“Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, Said He Supported Line-Item Authority In The 1990s But Worries That Bush Already Is Grabbing Too Much Power From Congress.” (Julie Mason, “White House Steps Up Effort To Gain Line-Item Veto,” Knight Ridder, 6/22/06)

Rep. Green: “I would rather look at it again, sometime, when we don’t have an executive taking a lot of power unto themselves.” (Julie Mason, “White House Steps Up Effort To Gain Line-Item Veto,” Knight Ridder, 6/22/06)

Rep. David Obey (D-WI): “I believe that the most pernicious aspect of this proposal is that it will further gut the ability of Congress to review a President’s foreign policy initiatives in an independent fashion. God knows we have already failed in our responsibilities with respect to keeping us out of the dumbest war since the War of 1812, in Iraq, and this ill-advised proposition will simply make those matters worse.” (Rep. David Obey, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4477)

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL): “For more than 5 years, the delicate system of checks and balances that our country depends on has been compromised all too often.” (Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4434)

Rep. Hastings: “Who knew that in the year 2000 the Supreme Court would choose America’s first prime minister and relegate Congress’ role to that of an advisory committee.” (Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4434)

Rep. Hastings: “Whether using so-called signing statements … or tapping our phones, or wildly interpreting authority given by the PATRIOT Act, this President has shown little to no regard for Congress’ coequal authority for control over the management of the country.” (Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4434)

Rep. David Price (D-NC): “As congressional scholars Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein observe, the Republican Congress, under the administration of George W. Bush, has featured ‘a general obeisance to Presidential initiative, and passivity in the face of Presidential power.’” (Rep. David Price, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4474)

Rep. Price: “This bill would tilt the balance of power even further in the direction of the White House.” (Rep. David Price, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4474) 

Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI): “[I]f there is a concern about overspending in this Congress, we already have a tool to address it. It is called stop spending. I guess I would have a little more confidence if the track record of this administration and this Congress was more serious about fiscal responsibility.” (Rep. Ron Kind, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4436)

Rep. Kind: “I am afraid this legislation today is nothing but a political fig leaf to try to cover up the complete breakdown in fiscal responsibility under this administration and this Congress.” (Rep. Ron Kind, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4436) 

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA): “This President hasn’t vetoed a single bill or used the rescission powers he already has.” (Rep. Lois Capps, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4438)

Even Though They Say The Bill Is Unconstitutional:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “I’m not one to surrender prerogatives of the Congress of the United States where the Constitution has given us the power of the purse, and that’s where it should reside. The president can sign or veto … but he shouldn’t be able to rewrite the bill.” (Rep. Pelosi, Press Conference, 6/22/06)

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL): “These requirements do nothing but upset the delicate balance of power that our Founding Fathers crafted.” (Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4434)

Rep. Hastings: “If this bill passes, consensus, the ultimate cornerstone of the legislative process, as well as the principles of democracy itself, will most definitely be lost.” (Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4434)

Rep. Hastings: “Granting line item veto authority to the executive branch would not only be offensive to democracy, it would be a serious mistake. It would undermine the United States Constitution, and it would be the kind of mistake we cannot afford to pay.” (Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4434)

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA): “How ill-considered, how ill-timed in the middle of war that we would do this, to give the authority to the Executive to make decisions that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson correctly believed belonged with this body.” (Rep. Richard Neal, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4437-H4438)

Rep. Neal: “What do we do here? We cede more authority to the Executive. … You are going to regret the day you ever embraced this item. Calling down to the White House to see if your spending proposal was okay?” (Rep. Richard Neal, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4437)

Rep. Neal: “Do you know what is going to happen? And you mark my words. The President will determine what spending priorities are and not the Congress according to our Constitution. … The threats from the Executive are always a part of our lives in congressional reality, and everybody here knows it.” (Rep. Richard Neal, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4438)

Rep. David Price (D-NC): “[T]he line item veto has very little to do with budgeting at all. It has everything to do with power, Presidential power. The shift of constitutional power from Congress to the executive branch has greatly accelerated since the 1990s.” (Rep. David Price, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4474)

Rep. Price: “The line item veto is not about spending versus saving. It is about letting the President, not Congress, decide what we are spending money on.” (Rep. David Price, Congressional Record, 6/22/06, p. H4474)

Democrats Voted Against The 2005 Deficit Reduction Bill:

200 House Democrats And 44 Senate Democrats Voted Against The 2005 Budget Reconciliation, Which Would Save Taxpayers Nearly $39 Billion Over 5 Years. (S. 1932, CQ Vote #4: Adopted 216-214: R 216-13; D 0-200; I 0-1, 2/1/06; S. 1932, CQ Vote #363: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 50-5; D 0-44; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 12/21/05)

Democrats Said The Bill Was “Morally Irresponsible”:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “If you are a student, it increases the cost of student loans. If you are a senior or low-income person, especially in rural America, it decreases the assistance for low income home heating oil.” (Zachary Coile, “GOP Bitterly Divided Over Federal Spending,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 10/24/05)

Rep. Pelosi: “Democrats are unified: these cuts were only in the interests of republican special interest cronies, and would have devastating consequences on those who need our help most – hurricane survivors, students, seniors, and rural Americans.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], “Pelosi Statement On Republican Leadership Canceling Vote On Ill-Conceived And Punitive Budget Cuts,” Press Release, 10/19/05)

“House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer Of Maryland Said Democrats Have Several Ideas To Reform The Spending Process, But Won’t Accept ‘Cutting For Cutting’s Sake.’” (Amy Fagan, “House GOP Aims To Delete New Senate Spending,” The Washington Times, 10/21/05)

Rep. Hoyer: “It is perverse, it is bad policy, and I think Americans will see it as such.” (Patrick O’Connor, “Budget Vise Tightens: Pressure Mounts On House GOP To Deliver Votes,” The Hill, 10/19/05)

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA): “[U]nfortunately, the Republican budget that has been put forth on the table is not serious at all. In fact, it makes a mockery of the fiscal responsibility that we’ve been calling for.” (Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D-CA], Press Conference, 10/20/05)

Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD): “This plan [is] morally irresponsible, it’s fiscally irresponsible as well.” (Rep. Stephanie Herseth [D-SD], Press Conference, 10/20/05)

Democrats Complained Even Though They Voted For Similar Measures In The Past:

42 Senate Democrats And 153 House Democrats Voted For The Final FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation, Which Called For $140 Billion In Entitlement Spending Cuts, Including $115 Billion In Medicare Cuts. (H.R. 2015, CQ Vote #209: Adopted 85-15: R 43-12; D 42-3, 7/31/97; H.R. 2015, CQ Vote #345: Adopted 346-85: R 193-32; D 153-52; I 0-1, 7/30/97)

The Earlier Senate Version Called For $135.9 Billion In Spending Cuts, Including $115 Billion In Cuts To Medicare And $13.6 Billion In Cuts To Medicaid. (S. 947, CQ Vote #130: Passed 73-27: R 52-3; D 21-24, 6/25/97)

The Earlier House Version Of Reconciliation Called For A $137 Billion Cut In Entitlement Spending, Including A $115 Billion Cut To Medicare. (H.R. 2015, CQ Vote #241: Passed 270-162: R 219-7; D 51-154; I 0-1, 6/25/97)

50 Senate Democrats And 217 House Democrats Voted For The Final FY 1994 Budget Reconciliation, Which Cut Spending By $255 Billion, Including $55.8 Billion In Medicare Cuts And A $102 Billion Freeze In Discretionary Spending. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, 8/6/93; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #406: Adopted 218-216: R 0-175; 217-41; 1-0, 8/5/93)

The Earlier Senate Version Of The Reconciliation Called For $243 Billion Tax Increases And $256 Billion In Spending Cuts. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, 6/25/93)

The Earlier House Version Of The Reconciliation Called For $250 Billion In Tax Increases, $87 Billion In Mandatory Spending Cuts, And An Additional $159 Billion Saved Through Discretionary Spending Cuts And Reduced Interest Payments. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #199: Passed 219-213: R 0-175; D 218-38; I 1-0, 5/27/93)

Senate Democrats Sought To Add Nearly $2.3 Trillion To Last Five Budgets:
                                
The Full Senate Rejected Nearly $572 Billion In Democrat Spending During 2001 (FY 2002) Budget Debate. ($311 Billion: Baucus Amdt., H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #66; $97 Billion: Johnson Amdt., H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #68; $100 Billion: Landrieu Amdt., H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #71; $13.7 Billion: Stabenow Amdt., H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #73; $50 Billion: Corzine Amdt., H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #77)

2002: “[F]or The First Time Since The Congressional Budget Act Was Passed In 1974, The Senate Failed To Pass A Budget Resolution Because Democrats, Who Currently Control The Senate, Could Not Find The Votes To Pass A Measure On The Floor.” (David Baumann, “Nickles Gets A ‘Pain In The Neck,’” The National Journal, 11/23/02)

The Full Senate Rejected Nearly $1.3 Trillion In Democrat Spending During 2003 (FY 2004) Budget Debate. ($8.9 Billion: Murray Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #60; $219 Billion: Graham Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #63; $88 Billion: Schumer Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #65; $103.5 Billion: Lautenberg Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #68; $73 Billion: Conrad Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #70; $3.5 Billion: Clinton Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #73; $1 Billion: Dorgan Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #74; $1 Billion: Biden Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #78; $20.3 Billion: Lincoln Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #81; $358 Billion: Conrad Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #83; $16.3 Billion: Kennedy Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #85; $42 Billion: Dodd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #86; $2.9 Billion: Daschle Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #87; $3 Billion: Leahy Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #88; $25 Billion: Harkin Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #89; $9.1 Billion: Bingaman Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #90; $17.5 Billion: Dodd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #91; $4.55 Billion: Clinton Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #92; $12.4 Billion: Corzine Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #96; $15.6 Billion: Lautenberg Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #97; $3.6 Billion: Clinton Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #98; $24 Billion: Harkin Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #99; $229 Billion: Dayton Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #103; $800 Million: Kerry Amdt., S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #104)

The Full Senate Rejected More Than $140 Billion In Democrat Spending During 2004 (FY 2005) Budget Debate. ($2.7 Billion: Daschle Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #34; $8.6 Billion: Murray Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #35; $1.8 Billion: Nelson Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #40; $1.4 Billion: Sarbanes Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #42; $1.1  Billion: Dorgan Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #44; $8.3 Billion: Lautenberg Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #45; $30.5 Billion: Harkin Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #46; $60 Billion: Lincoln Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #47; $11.2 Billion: Byrd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #48; $6.8 Billion: Lieberman Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #50; $4.9 Billion: Kennedy Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #51; $3.4 Billion: Daschle Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #52; $1 Billion: Dodd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #53)

The Full Senate Rejected More Than $110 Billion In Democrat Spending During 2005 (FY 2006) Budget Debate. ($4.75 Billion: Bingaman Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #45; $1.6 Billion: Stabenow Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #50; $1.04 Billion: Byrd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #51; $2.8 Billion: Akaka Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #55; $7.46 Billion: Harkin Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #61; $1.9 Billion: Sarbanes Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #65; $2.8 Billion: Baucus Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #69; $1 Billion: Biden Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #70; $13.8 Billion: Byrd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #71; $1.036 Billion: Clinton Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #75; $3.2 Billion: Dorgan Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #78; $71.3 Billion: Dayton Amdt., S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79)

The Full Senate Rejected More Than $150 Billion In Democrat Spending During 2006 (FY 2007) Budget Debate. ($6.3 Billion: Kennedy Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #39; $1.5 Billion: Akaka Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #41; $4.05 Billion: Bingaman Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #42; $1 Billion: Murray Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #43; $5 Billion: Stabenow Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #45; $965 Million: Menendez Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #47; $1.45 Billion: Byrd Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #51; $5 Billion: Conrad Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #55; $8 Billion: Lieberman Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #59; $2.9 Billion: Sarbanes Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #60; $1 Billion: Dorgan Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #61; $104 Billion: Stabenow Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #63; $3 Billion: Akaka Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #64; $2 Billion: Lincoln Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #66; $735 Million: Kerry Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #67; $750 Million: Boxer Amdt., S. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #69)

Senate Democrats Propose More Spending Than Their Republican Counterparts:

In The First Six Months Of The 109th Congress, 21 Of The Top 25 Senators With The Highest Bill Tally (Cost Of Each Members’ Sponsored Legislation) Were Democrats. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

Some Highlights:

#1: Before Leaving To Takeover The New Jersey Governorship, Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Proposed 53 Bills That Would Increase Spending By Nearly $129 Billion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

#18: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Proposed 67 Bills In The First Six Months Of 2005 With A Total Cost Of $32.6 Billion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

In The 108th Congress, 24 Of The Top 25 Senators With The Highest Bill Tally Were Democrats – Number 25 Was Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT). (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

Some Highlights:

#1: Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Proposed 145 Bills That Had A Net Cost Of $441 Billion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

The Average Cost Of The Top 25 Senators’ (24 Democrats, One Independent) Sponsored Legislation Was More Than $24 Billion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

In The 107th Congress, 23 Of The Top 25 Senators With The Highest Bill Tally Were Democrats. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

Some Highlights:

#1: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) Proposed 88 Bills That Had A Net Cost Of Nearly $889 Billion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

#19: Current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Proposed 99 Bills Costing More Than $115 Billion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

House Democrats Propose More Spending Than Their Republican Counterparts:

In The First Six Months Of The 109th Congress, 97 Of The Top 100 Representatives With The Highest Bill Tally (Cost Of Each Members’ Sponsored Legislation) Were Democrats. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

Some Highlights:

51 House Democrats Proposed Bills That Would Have A Net Cost Of More Than $1.5 Trillion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

#2: Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) Was Runner-Up To Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) In The Spending Race, Proposing 86 Bills That Would Have A Net Cost Of Nearly $1.7 Trillion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

In The 108th Congress, 99 Of The Top 100 Representatives With The Highest Bill Tally Were Democrats (Number 37 Was Vermont Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders). (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

Some Highlights:

Two Democrats, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) And Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Proposed Bills Costing More Than $2 Trillion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

The Average Cost Of The Top 40 Representatives’ (39 Democrats, One Independent) Sponsored Legislation Was More Than $1.8 Trillion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

In The 107th Congress, 98 Of The Top 100 Representatives With The Highest Bill Tally Were Democrats. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

Some Highlights:

31 Democrats Proposed Bills With A Net Cost Of More Than $1 Trillion. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06)

#28 And #74: Ways And Means Ranking Member Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) Proposed 157 Bills (Net Cost: $1.4 Trillion) While Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rep. David Obey (D-WI) Proposed 13 Bills (Net Cost: More Than $500 Billion). ((National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 6/27/06; Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com/members.do, Accessed 6/28/06)

House Democrats Voted Against Penny-Kasich In 1993:

In 1993, 200 House Democrats Voted Against An Amendment Offered By Reps. John Kasich (R-OH) And Tim Penny (D-MN) “To Cut Federal Spending By $90 Billion Over Five Years Through Various Proposals ...” (H.R. 3400, CQ Vote #609: Rejected 213-219: R 156-18; D 57-200; I 0-1, 11/22/93)

“The Penny-Kasich Plan … Would Have Cut Spending By A Mere 1 Percent Over The Next Five Years.” (Rick Henderson, “Deficit Chickens,” Reason, 2/94)

“[T]he Penny-Kasich Plan Amounted To Cutting A Penny On A Dollar Over Five Years.” (Reps. Tim Penny and John Kasich, “The Penny-Kasich Fight For Deficit Reduction,” Tax Foundation’s Tax Features, 12/93)

“The Plan Had A Big Hook: Every Dollar Cut From Spending Would Also Reduce The Spending Caps Enacted In Clinton’s Budget.” (Rick Henderson, “Deficit Chickens,” Reason, 2/94)

“In Other Words, Congress Couldn’t Take Money Cut From These Programs And Spend It Somewhere Else Without Busting Clinton’s Budget Deal.” (Rick Henderson, “Deficit Chickens,” Reason, 2/94)

Senate Democrats Voted Against A Similar Proposal In 1994:

In February 1994, Sens. Hank Brown (R-CO) And Bob Kerrey (D-NE) Offered An Amendment To Cut Spending By $94 Billion. (David Espo, “Quake Aid Waits While Senate Debates Proposed Spending Cuts,” The Associated Press, 2/9/94)

“Their Proposal Was Similar To The Five-Year, $90 Billion Savings Plan Proposed Last Year In The House By Reps. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) And John R. Kasich (R-Ohio) And Narrowly Defeated After A Heavy Lobbying Campaign By The White House.” (Helen Dewar, “Spending Cut Battles Hold Up Quake Relief,” The Washington Post, 2/10/94)

42 Senate Democrats Voted Against The Brown-Kerrey Reforms. (H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #35: Motion Agreed To 65-31: R 23-19; D 42-12, 2/9/94)

Democrats Voted Against Giving Budget Resolution The Force Of Law:

In 2000, 186 House Democrats Voted Against Changing The Budget Resolution From A Non-Binding Resolution To A Resolution Requiring Presidential Signature And Having Force Of Law. (H.R. 853, CQ Vote #189: Rejected 166-250: R 153-63; D 12-186; I 1-1, 5/16/00)

In 2004, 181 House Democrats Voted Against A Plan To Change The Budget Resolution From A Non-Binding Resolution To A Resolution Requiring Presidential Signature.  (H.R. 4663, CQ Vote #311: Rejected 97-312: R 87-130; D 10-181; I 0-1, 6/24/04)

Democrats Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment:

A Majority Of House Democrats Voted Against A Balanced Budget At Least Two Times. (H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #51: Passed 300-132: R 228-2; D 72-129; I 0-1, 1/26/95; H.J. Res. 103, CQ Vote #65: Rejected 271-153: R 172-1; D 99-151; I 0-1, 3/17/94)

In The 1990s, A Majority Of Senate Democrats Voted Against A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment At Least 4 Times. (S. J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, 3/4/97; H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: R 52-1; D 12-34, 6/6/96; H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: R 51-2; D 14-33, 3/2/95; S. J. Res. 41, CQ Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: R 41-3; D 22-34, 3/1/94)

Ensuring Roll Call Votes On Bills That Expand Government Or Increase Spending. (Town Hall Website, “Suggested Questions For Majority Leader Candidates,” www.townhall.com, Accessed 6/2/06) 

Democrats Voted Against Replacing The Annual Budget Process With A Biennial Process:

In 2000, 174 House Democrats Voted Against Replacing The Annual Budget And Appropriation System With A Biennial One. (H.R. 853, CQ Vote #186: Rejected 201-217: R 176-42; D 24-174, I 1-1, 5/16/00)

Democrats Voted Against A Sunset Commission:

In 2004, 128 House Democrats Voted Against Establishing A “A 12-Member Federal Sunset Commission To Review All Federal Agencies For Their Efficiency, Effectiveness, Redundancy And Need.” (H.R. 4663, CQ Vote #305: Adopted 272-140: R 208-11; D 64-128; I 0-1, 6/24/04)