Billions in spending shifted after 1994

WASHINGTON -- 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.

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."

High stakes in November

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.

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.

Mostly a byproduct

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.

Cutting 'institutional pork'

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, covering more than a fifth of his costs. Without that money, he said, "I couldn't operate the row crop part of it."

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.

House just one player

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 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.