Budget divisions showcase larger rift

Roswell Republican who leads House panel faces battle.

If there’s one clear example of how the ongoing civil war between the GOP’s hardright conservatives and the party’s more pragmatic, centrist wing is impacting how Congress functions, look no further than its budget resolution,

WASHINGTON — If there’s one clear example of how the ongoing civil war between the GOP’s hardright conservatives and the party’s more pragmatic, centrist wing is impacting how Congress functions, look no further than its budget resolution.

On the surface, such measures don’t really matter. They don’t have the force of law and are particularly moot this year because party leaders already agreed in 2015 on how much money they want the federal government to spend for the budget cycle that begins Oct 1.

But on Capitol Hill such spending blueprints say a great deal about how a party is functioning and the message it wants to send to the world about its ideals. And that’s what makes them so ripe for the kinds of internal fights over ideology and tactics that have spilled into public view this presidential cycle.

House Republican leaders have worked behind the scenes for weeks to find a plan that could attract the support of every corner of the caucus. They’ve made the fiscal 2017 budget resolution — and the 12 government spending bills that would follow it this spring and summer — their biggest legislative priority for the year.

But already the powerful House Freedom Caucus — the crew of more than three dozen conser- vatives that helped topple then-Speaker John Boehner last fall — has effectively vetoed the plan advanced Tuesday by House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price.

The Roswell Republican will need to revise the proposal if he’d like to see it advance through the committee he oversees on Wednesday and later the full House. If last year’s run is any indication, it won’t be a cakewalk.

The stakes are higher this year because of the elections. The same party divisions that have dominated the narrative on the campaign trail not only threaten to embarrass Price and new Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., a former budget chairman himself, but nuke the relatively meager workload Congress had planned to undertake ahead of the elections.

For Republicans seeking to win control of the White House and maintain their edge in the Senate by proving they can govern, watching a nonbinding policy blueprint collapse in a chamber in which they hold the largest number of seats in decades would not bode well.

There are also implications for Ryan, who promised as speaker to reinvigorate Republican policymaking and advance spending bills that reflect GOP priorities under a more orderly and regularized process, and Price, who faces a primary challenge this spring and has eyed higher leadership posts in the past.

Price’s plan

The policy vision that Price unveiled Tuesday is similar to the ones Republican leaders have advanced in recent years. It would balance the budget in 10 years, repeal Obamacare and overhaul programs for the poor.

Still, the Price plan would not raise taxes. It would instead cut $6.5 trillion in spending over a decade and alter Medicare. It would also turn Medicaid and food stamps into state block grants and dismantle the Department of Commerce.

“The Fiscal Year 2017 House Republican budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America, provides a vision and specific solutions for how we can, as a nation, get our fiscal house in order, strengthen our national security, provide support for those who need assistance and empower our citizens and our communities,” Price said in a statement.

The blueprint also takes steps to unlock a special legislative tool the GOP-led Congress could later use to bypass a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

The biggest fault line with fiscal conservatives, however, centers on the fact that the measure adheres to the budget deal Boehner forged with the White House and congressional leaders last fall. That accord allows for $30 billion in additional federal spending for the upcoming year, half of which would go to defense-related programs.

Republican leaders have been pushing for lawmakers to accept the higher spending level so that they can move forward on government spending bills later this spring, since the only way Democrats and Republican defense hawks will move forward is if the budget deal is honored.

But the House Freedom Caucus rejected the olive branch provided by Price in the form of a promise for later votes on separate legislation that would cut at least $30 billion from other entitlement programs and a balanced budget amendment. The group, which consists of roughly 40 members, effectively has veto power, since Price and Ryan will only be able to lose the support of 28 House Republicans if they want to pass it through the chamber.

Freedom Caucus members say they want to vote on a plan that cuts spending now — not in several years’ time — and is one with the budget resolution, not a separate proposal that the Senate can easily strip away later.

“The American people are skeptical of us. They have been promised over the years that we need to do this now, and then Congress always does something later. Whatever we do, it needs to be done simultaneously with the budget itself,” U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview.

Loudermilk said that while he opposes the budget in its current form, he is open to supporting it if changes are made.

“There are a ton of ideas within the House Freedom Caucus, and the stance taken was that we’re far from being where we need to be in terms of getting our support. But it’s not an indictment, at least from me, of leadership or Dr. Price. He’s trying to work with both sides.”

Democratic leaders were quick to slam the proposal, dispelling any possibility that their party would support it.