House Republicans on Course for Budget Clash

It has been just over three months since moderate Republicans squared off with House Republican leaders over the federal budget, but this week, with those wounds still fresh, they will be at it again.

If they can round up the votes, House leaders will bring a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint to the floor, probably on Thursday. Republicans hope to tout the measure as a testament to the party's commitment to fiscal discipline, at least on one corner of the federal budget -- non-security discretionary spending.

The spending at Congress's annual discretion would be held to President Bush's requested level of $873 billion in fiscal 2007, up 3.6 percent from the current year. But to accommodate a 7 percent increase in military spending and a 3.6 percent boost to homeland security programs, domestic programs would have to be squeezed.

Moderate Republicans are again balking.

"We went through a very tough struggle on the [budget] vote in December," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.). "We fought for a few changes. Then a lot of us reluctantly voted for it. Three months later, we're supposed to do it again?"

At least half a dozen moderate Republicans have declared their opposition to the budget, as written, and with Democrats united in opposition, GOP leaders cannot afford many more defections.

Moderates are demanding $7 billion more for labor, health and education programs, the same amount that their counterparts in the Senate were able to extract in their budget fight last month. To get that increase, they will propose either raising the cap on discretionary spending or offsetting the domestic spending through defense cuts.

But conservatives are just as resolute that Republicans hold the line on spending, lest the GOP's base voters abandon a party that has overseen the most dramatic fiscal shift from surpluses to deficits in the nation's history. Even with a virtual freeze on domestic programs, the House budget would add $3 trillion to the national debt over the next five years -- largely by extending expiring tax cuts and allowing spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare to rise virtually unimpeded.

Castle would not venture to guess how the showdown will turn out. But moderates, many of them eyeing tough reelection fights in the fall, are ready to test the House's new leadership team.

"I do think we've gotten their attention," Castle said.

Democrats to Fight Bill Limiting '527' Groups

The House will attempt this week to pass new restrictions on certain political groups, but Democrats are vowing to block the measure if and when it reaches the Senate.

"527" organizations, named after the section of the tax code that governs them, would be forced under the House bill to comply with the same federal campaign laws that political parties and political action committees must follow.

The House bill has drawn an odd mix of supporters. Republicans see the legislation as an opportunity to neutralize what Democrats have turned into an effective election tool. But campaign reform groups such as Common Cause and Democracy 21 are pushing for the measure, as are grass-roots organizations such as Public Citizen and the League of Women Voters.

A joint letter by the reform groups, distributed yesterday to all House members, accused the 527s of "spending unlimited soft money on campaign ads and partisan voter mobilizations efforts to influence federal elections." Common Cause noted that 527 groups spent an estimated $400 million during the 2004 election season, with about 25 individuals alone contributing $146 million.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance site, the top two 527 entities for the 2006 election cycle, ranked by receipts, are run by the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- both Democratic-allied labor unions. The No. 3 group is the GOP-allied Progress for America, but Nos. 4 and 5 are the liberal American Votes and America Coming Together.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said of the 527 bill, "I will strongly oppose it."

Although Republicans want to limit 527s, Pelosi said, the GOP has its own preferred financing structures. "So what they are saying is, 'Just fill our coffers,' " she explained to reporters last week. "If we are going to do that, just do it across the board; but do not say, 'Well, we think one side will be damaged by one of these approaches, so we will just cut them off and have all of the special-interest money continue to flow.' "

Given the strong Democratic opposition, House Republicans leaders are trying to quell potential defections from conservatives who oppose the bill and may try to tack on a repeal of the aggregate limit, enacted after the Watergate scandal in 1974, on the total amount an individual can contribute to all federal candidates and political parties in a two-year election cycle. The reform groups labeled that proposal a "poison pill" amendment and urged House members to vote against the overall bill if the repeal is attached.