Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AP: GOP Shifted Billions to Districts
AP | 8-05-02 | David Pace

Posted on 08/05/2002 1:56:16 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache

AP: GOP Shifted Billions to Districts

By DAVID PACE
Associated Press Writer
AP/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE [16K]

BREAKING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (AP) — The 1994 revolution that gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives produced a seismic shift in federal spending, moving tens of billions of dollars from Democratic to GOP districts, an Associated Press analysis shows.

Rather than pork barrel projects for new GOP districts, the change was driven mostly by Republican policies that moved spending from poor rural and urban areas to the more affluent suburbs and GOP-leaning farm country, the computer analysis showed.

The result was an average of $612 million more in federal spending last year for congressional districts represented by Republicans than for those represented by Democrats, the analysis found. AP/Dave Martin [18K]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In terms of services, for example, that translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps.

``There is an old adage,'' said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. ``To the victor goes the spoils.''

House Democratic Conference Chairman Martin Frost said the spending shift demonstrates that ``who's in the majority does make a difference.''

The analysis highlights the huge stakes for voters in the November midterm elections, when Republicans will try to hold onto their narrow six-seat majority in the House. The Senate, which the Republicans also won in 1994, switched to Democratic control in June 2001 when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and became an independent.

Republican House districts that received an average of $3.9 billion in 1995 ballooned to $5.8 billion in 2001, a 52 percent increase, the analysis found. Over the same period, spending in Democratic districts on average increased only 34 percent, from $3.9 billion to $5.2 billion.

When Democrats last controlled the House and wrote the 1995 budget, the average Democratic district got $35 million more than the average GOP district. By 2001, average federal spending in Republican districts was $612 million more than in Democratic districts.

Armey and other GOP leaders say the spending shift wasn't part of a premeditated strategy, although they acknowledge directing federal spending toward districts where Republican representatives are politically vulnerable.

``Clearly that happens, whether you're Republican or Democrat,'' said former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., who oversaw the House Appropriations Committee for three years after the GOP takeover. AP/Joe Marquette [21K]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest spending increases came in districts that stayed Republican since before 1995. Those that switched from Democratic to Republican in the 1994 election also benefited more than Democratic districts.

GOP leaders say the spending shift mostly was a byproduct of their efforts to change the direction of government and to ensure GOP areas received fairer treatment after four decades of being in the minority.

Between 1995 and 2001, AP's analysis found that 20 of the 30 fastest growing federal programs already had disproportionately benefited constituents in GOP districts Republicans took over in 1995.

Similarly, 20 of the 30 programs that were cut the most had disproportionately benefited Democratic districts before the takeover.

For instance, spending on child care food programs was slashed 80 percent; public and Indian housing grants were virtually eliminated; rental housing loans for rural areas and special benefits for disabled coal miners were cut by two-thirds; and the food stamp program was cut by a third.

Rock Myrthil felt the impact when he brought his family to the United States two years ago looking for opportunity and an escape from crime in his native Haiti. Despite a full-time job as a mechanic, Myrthil said he's unable to support his wife and four children on his $400-a-week salary.

Myrthil, 38, of Brockton, Mass., is one of thousands of legal immigrants who don't qualify for food stamps because of changes Congress made in 1997. He can obtain food stamps only for his 3-month-old baby, who automatically became a U.S. citizen when she was born stateside.

``I have family, four brothers over here, a sister, when I need some food they can give me some food,'' he said.

Armey said the programs cut by the GOP Congress were ``institutional pork,'' designed to help Democrats build a loyal constituency.

By cutting those programs, Armey said, Republicans reduced the amount of money going to Democratic districts.

But Congress under GOP rule also directed more money to programs that disproportionately benefit GOP districts. Direct payments to farmers increased sevenfold during the six years of GOP rule; business and industrial loans quadrupled; home mortgage insurance went up 150 percent; and crop insurance assistance jumped by two-thirds.

Mississippi farmer David Waide got about $40,000 in federal crop subsidies during 2001, covered more than a fifth of his costs. Without that money, he said, ``I couldn't operate the row crop part of it.'' AP/ [18K] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal spending records analyzed by AP are maintained by the Census Bureau and reflect both direct spending and government loans and insurance. In almost all cases, they also provide the location where the money was spent, making it possible to compare spending on a district-by-district basis.

Programs like flood insurance are reported in terms of the government's total liability, should it have to pay insurance claims. While that inflates the overall spending numbers, the trend of bigger spending increases in Republican districts remained whether government insurance programs were counted or not.

From 1995 to 2001, average federal spending without insurance in Republican districts increased 41 percent, compared with 27 percent in Democratic districts.

Robert M. Stein, a Rice University political scientist and co-author of a book on federal spending after the GOP takeover of Congress, said Republicans ``love contingent liabilities, guaranteed loans, subsidies, and insurance payments because they really don't break the budget.''

Armey agreed.

``That is possible because of the way (budget) scorekeeping is set up,'' he said. ``Our intuitive first reaction is what does it cost? And if the scorekeeper comes back and says it costs less, we have more of an inclination to leave it alone.''

The House, of course, is just one player in the complicated process that results in parceling out federal spending. The Senate and the administration also have a say in how federal dollars are spent.

During the six years after the GOP takeover, for example, two districts in then-President Clinton's home state of Arkansas had the biggest increases in federal spending among the 377 districts with constant boundaries.

Ironically, House leaders proved less adept at directing money toward their own districts, further showing that policy changes — not pork politics — were the driving force behind the spending shift.

Armey's Texas district, for instance, ranked 211th when the GOP took control, and slipped to 213th by 2001. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt's Missouri district fell from 36th in 1995 to 77th six years later.

———


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: billions; districts; gop
CNN is gonna have a field day with this
1 posted on 08/05/2002 1:56:16 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
I think this is all wonderful news!!!!
2 posted on 08/05/2002 1:57:59 PM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
produced a seismic shift in federal spending, moving tens of billions of dollars from Democratic to GOP districts,

yeah, so?

3 posted on 08/05/2002 1:58:41 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
:)GOP bump...ya know the right wing nuts?
4 posted on 08/05/2002 1:59:49 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
I have to agree--this is terrific news. Do I have a problem with this? No. Should Republicans apologize? HELL no. ;-D
5 posted on 08/05/2002 2:00:55 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
AP Analysis: Billions in federal spending shifted to GOP districts after 1994 House takeover
6 posted on 08/05/2002 2:01:36 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
I've got an idea. Let's spend NONE in Democrat districts for awhile. It'll still be a generation before we catch up, and maybe longer if Robert Byrd doesn't croak soon.
7 posted on 08/05/2002 2:02:25 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
HEY AP - THEY MOVED IT FROM THE DEMOCRATS AREAS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE KEEPING THE MONEY AWAY FROM THE REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS FOR YEARS & YEARS
8 posted on 08/05/2002 2:04:19 PM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
Funny thing about omelets - turn them over and they brown on the other side
9 posted on 08/05/2002 2:04:49 PM PDT by SEGUET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
The Headline should read - For years the Democrats made sure that the governments spending was in areas that voted for them. This monopoly of federal funds was broken up in 1994.
10 posted on 08/05/2002 2:06:25 PM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SEGUET
But then again - I generally turn my omelets over 3 times - huh
11 posted on 08/05/2002 2:07:02 PM PDT by SEGUET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
I can't imagine that this amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions spent on welfare in the inner cities which are Demoncrap areas. Reality check, AP?
12 posted on 08/05/2002 2:09:01 PM PDT by austingirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
I love the AP's title -- makes it sound like money-laundering or Enronesque fuzzy math.
13 posted on 08/05/2002 2:15:42 PM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
Myrthil, 38, of Brockton, Mass., is one of thousands of legal immigrants who don't qualify for food stamps because of changes Congress made in 1997. He can obtain food stamps only for his 3-month-old baby, who automatically became a U.S. citizen when she was born stateside. ``I have family, four brothers over here, a sister, when I need some food they can give me some food,'' he said.

Imagine that -- people choosing to provide for their own families, instead of forcing taxpayers to do it. What a novel idea.

14 posted on 08/05/2002 2:19:02 PM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
When Democrats last controlled the House and wrote the 1995 budget, the average Democratic district got $35 million more than the average GOP district. By 2001, average federal spending in Republican districts was $612 million more than in Democratic districts.

This is a great example of Media Bias. The figures are for the average Democrat distirct compared to all Republican distircts. The average Republican district advantage works out to less than $3 million. In other words, the Democrats abused the system more than 10 times as much as the Republicans - $35 to $3 million per district.

The numbers also fail to account for inflation. With inflation, the Democrats were far more abusive than the 10 to 1 ratio.

15 posted on 08/05/2002 2:23:40 PM PDT by JamesWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
So what?! Congresspeople always steer money to their districts. More GOP Congresspeople = more money in GOP districts... What's the news here?? Unless they figure out a way to do away with pork, this is par for the course. Anyhow, the GOP areas probably needed equalized funding after being deprived for so many years by the Dem congresses.
16 posted on 08/05/2002 2:24:42 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I've got an idea. Let's spend NONE in Democrat districts for awhile.

I've got a better idea. Let's spend NONE AT ALL in any districts, period. Let's shut these political scams down. Let's shift the War on Drugs to War on Politicians ;-)

17 posted on 08/05/2002 2:24:55 PM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
$612 million more in federal spending last year for congressional districts represented by Republicans than for those represented by Democrats

Washington sneezes bigger than this.

18 posted on 08/05/2002 2:27:11 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Call me cruel, but I have no complaints about starving non-citizens. First, they are here illegally so they can get out of my country and two, where in the hell do they get off expecting that US taxpayers need to feed them? I am glad that the GOP moved money from those leeching districts.
19 posted on 08/05/2002 2:28:04 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Looks like the presstitutes don't care for the generic polls. ;^)
20 posted on 08/05/2002 2:30:54 PM PDT by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KSCITYBOY
Good point. It was from the Republican districts that the bulk of tax revenues came to spend in poor rural and urban Democratic districts. I'm tired of paying their freight.
21 posted on 08/05/2002 2:35:27 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
These are the areas that have the bulk of those who actually produce something for this nation. They should get the lion's share of revenues back from DC.
22 posted on 08/05/2002 2:36:41 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
BFD - the demos have been doing this to us for years when they controlled - I'm sure they are the ones now crying and complaining - boo hoo - poor babies - whiners......
23 posted on 08/05/2002 2:37:11 PM PDT by ldish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
CNN is gonna have a field day with this

Why of course dont you know there the most credible news source on the globe! [laughing so hard my stomach hurts ]

....../sarcasm kept on due to temporary insanity and lack of duct tape /

24 posted on 08/05/2002 2:38:12 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
This sort of makes sense since, under the Republicans, the moneys are pretty much being returned to where they're being taken from, right?
25 posted on 08/05/2002 2:39:36 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
So, the millions of dollars in Federal gifts David Bonior (D-Mich) got for St. Clair Shores is for a poor urban district?

Hmmm... I'm sure the voters in Macomb County would love to know they are part of a poor urban area...

26 posted on 08/05/2002 2:41:55 PM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
This is breaking news?

"In terms of services, for example, that translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps."

So the GOP shifted spending from the less-productive to the more-productive sectors.
That's to be applauded, not condemned.

27 posted on 08/05/2002 2:45:49 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
This is good news and should cause every person in Michigan to vote for the GOP. We are tired of sending all of our dollars to support Detroit. Just let it die and be done with it.
28 posted on 08/05/2002 2:57:56 PM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Ironically, House leaders proved less adept at directing money toward their own districts, further showing that policy changes — not pork politics — were the driving force behind the spending shift.

As to be expected, the most relevant sentence is buried near the end. The headline is completely misleading. But that's the play to their own constituents. Liberals are about headlines, Conservatives are about the actual details.

29 posted on 08/05/2002 3:02:57 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
Rather than pork barrel projects for new GOP districts, the change was driven mostly by Republican policies that moved spending from poor rural and urban areas to the more affluent suburbs

Great news. I can't wait for the government to remodel my kitchen and build that addition over the garage - I think a billiards table would be just the thing to stick in it. Maybe the government will get me one out of surplus. I already got the cue sticks at a yard sale.

30 posted on 08/05/2002 3:03:45 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Should Republicans apologize? HELL no.

If they do it just goes to show that the Dems are not the only party that is totally out of touch with their constituency.

31 posted on 08/05/2002 5:15:15 PM PDT by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
True junk science.

The title could have just as acurately read:

"GOP Shifts Billions to Districts With More Visible Sky".

There are at least 5 other causal corellations that I can quickly see which are just as legitimate as politics and some make much more logical sense.

Reread the article and think about it.

32 posted on 08/05/2002 5:35:48 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
Farm subsidies make me sick.
33 posted on 08/05/2002 6:23:16 PM PDT by be131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
Proof that Republicans are socialists too.

And proud of it, by gum.

34 posted on 08/06/2002 2:54:28 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
File this one under "DUH!"
35 posted on 08/06/2002 2:57:36 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
Yes! Let the Blue Enclaves wither on the vine.
36 posted on 08/06/2002 2:58:12 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson