Even as the national debt now exceeds $33 trillion,\u200c conservatives can take some measure of \u200csolace in the ways\u200d they are reducing spending. Washington\u200b isn\u2019t reducing the national \u2062debt \u2014 not by a long shot, sadly \u2014 but having a Republican majority means conservatives can succeed at \u2064some modest measures of damage limitation.<\/p>\n

Two weeks ago, I \u200canalyzed in these pages why Republicans \u2062wanted to \u2063pass legislation extending a mandatory spending program originally created<\/a> by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as part of Obamacare. Last week, House leaders tried to \u2063bring that\u2064 bill to the floor \u2014 but abandoned their efforts before it \u200deven came up for a vote. <\/p>\n

The story of this policy U-turn demonstrates conservatives\u2019 influence\u200b in \u2062preventing new \u200dspending and the \u200cpressure \u200bpoints in the ongoing debate over next\u200b year\u2019s budget.<\/p>\n

Rules Violation<\/h2>\n
In \u200bmy piece, I noted\u200c that the \u2064measure contained 10 years of\u2063 budgetary \u2062savings to \u2062fund two years of\u2062 spending. I\u200d didn\u2019t realize it\u2064 at the time (although I \u200dshould have), but that\u200c rubric violates the rules\u200d instituted \u200dby\u2064 the new Republican majority in January. Specifically, the\u200c CUTGO rule \u2014\u2064 Clause 10(a) of Rule \u2063XXI \u200cof the House (page 41 here) \u2014 states \u200cthat legislation cannot increase mandatory spending \u2063over\u2064 its first five or 10 years.<\/p>\n
Page two of the \u200dCongressional Budget Office (CBO) score\u200d of the updated legislation tells \u200bthe tale. The bill would increase mandatory (i.e., direct) spending by \u2063$11.9 \u2064billion in its \u2062first five years, and\u2064 $3.8 billion in its first \u200c10\u200c (the \u2063outlay numbers listed \u2064below):<\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n