On the Cutting Edge: The House GOP Alternative to Clinton's Budget

By Kasich, John R. | Policy Review, Summer 1993 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

On the Cutting Edge: The House GOP Alternative to Clinton's Budget

Kasich, John R., Policy Review

On March 18, 1993, 132 Republicans and three Democrats did something unusual for members of Congress: they voted to shrink the size of the government.

The vote was for a budget resolution, offered on the floor of the House of Representatives by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, to reduce federal spending by $430 billion over five years. This GOP budget achieved the same amount of deficit reduction promised by President Clinton's budget. But unlike the president's plan, the Republican budget achieved all of its savings through spending restraint. It did not raise any taxes and did not disturb the government's Social Security contract with the American people.

Many Republicans initially believed it was a mistake to put forth such a budget of their own. However, as the new ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, I believed it was absolutely necessary for the GOP to develop a bold, serious budget alternative to the president's economic plan. My GOP Budget Committee colleagues and I convinced most members of our party in the House that a detailed budget was essential in distinguishing the Republicans' intent to control the growth of the federal government from the Democrats' desire to expand it.

"No Hot Air, Show Me Where"

When President Clinton presented his budget strategy on February 17, in what he called his "Vision of Change for America," he asked critics of his plan to be as specific and thorough as he was in developing their alternatives, and precisely identify where they would allocate resources differently. His demand: "No hot air, show me where." Leon Panetta, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), repeated the challenge in testimony to the House Budget Committee.

Committee Republicans already had decided that any alternative they produced would be substantive and specific - it was not enough to call for a spending freeze or spending "caps." Such mechanisms only determine limits on aggregate spending amounts; they do not face up to the kinds of program changes needed to achieve the savings. They also ignore the different impact that the same level of spending cuts will have on individual programs and departments.

Control of federal dollars can only come by confronting particular programs line by line. Republicans needed to show precisely how and where they would achieve the savings they claimed.

A Clinton Trap?

Republicans who were reluctant to go forward with an alternative had understandable concerns. They saw the Clinton challenge as a trap. A GOP budget alternative would draw attention away from the Clinton budget and its numerous flaws, while asking Republican members to support spending cuts that could be unpopular with many constituents. It could draw the opposition of various interest groups, focusing attention on what they disliked in the Republican plan and away from everything that was wrong with the Clinton plan.

Despite these hazards, Budget Committee Republicans were convinced that, without a credible alternative to the president's budget, Republicans would come off as petty naysayers whose criticisms would not be taken seriously. Even more important was the future impact of such an approach. If Republican policies were to succeed in the long run, they would have to be formulated, explained, and advanced at every opportunity. If Republicans wanted to govern again, they had to show they knew what role the federal government should play in the life of the nation and that process had to start now, with the budget resolution.

The zeal and commitment of the committee's Republicans became apparent early. They quickly agreed on certain demanding criteria for their budget:

Credibility. Every spending reduction, every program termination, every government reform had to be based on sound and defensible analysis. There could be no gimmicks.


The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

On the Cutting Edge: The House GOP Alternative to Clinton's Budget


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?