Here are the relevant highlights:
Representatives authored 981 bills to raise federal spending and 63 bills to reduce spending. Senators drafted 620 increase bills and 34 savings bills. This comprised the largest number of savings bills introduced in the House since the 105th Congress, and the most in the Senate since the 106th.
FYI, the 106th would have been January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001 and 105th would be January 3, 1997 to January 3, 1999.
Each bill in the House to cut spending was outnumbered by 16 bills to increase spending. The ratio of increases to cuts was 18:1 in the Senate.
Excluding overlapping legislation, if each bill in the House were to become law, spending would increase by $1.845 trillion, or $15,802 per household. If each bill in the Senate were to become law, spending would increase by $1.064 trillion, $9,115 per household.
Where is this money coming from? Think about that... if every bill they put up were to pass the average household is in debt for $15,802 for the house bills and $9,115 for the senate bills, that's $24,917 on top of what the government was already spending.
The typical House Democrat backed increases totaling $502.5 billion, 0.46 percent of which would be offset by savings of $2.3 billion, for a net agenda of $500.2 billion. This amount had been gradually declining since the 109th Congress.
FYI, the 109th Congress was January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007.
Think about this. $502.5 Billion in new spending is DOWN from the level of spending they were previously pushing for. What can you say other then WOW!
For the first time since the 106th Congress, the typical House Republican sponsored more spending cuts than increases. If this average spending agenda were enacted, outlays would decrease by $45.3 billion.
106th was January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001.
What's interesting here is if you look at the chart they provide on THIS page, you can see that Republicans in the 103rd, 104th, 105th, and 106th pushed for more cuts then increases and that Democrats since the 102nd which is as far as the NTU reports have never pushed for more cuts then increases. The 103rd to 106th span from January 3, 1993 to January 3, 2001 which interestingly corresponds to when the budget was balanced under Clinton. A feat Democrats are very quick to take credit for, facts however show which party pushed for the cuts and which party at that same time was pushing for a total of $564 Billion in new spending. The 104th Senate is the only time you see Democrats pushing for more in cuts then spending increases.
Republicans meanwhile on average pushed for a total of $45 billion in cuts on average.
The net agenda of the typical Senate Democrat grew from $59.2 billion in the 110th Congress to $133.7 billion this Congress. On average, Senate Democrats proposed spending cuts of $3.3 billion, which would offset 2.4 percent of their sponsored increases.
Republican Senators, on average, supported spending hikes of $76.3 billion, a third of which would be offset by $25.4 billion in savings. This comprises a net spending agenda of $50.9 billion – the highest amount seen over the past ten Congresses.
Senate is clearly the area both parts need to be changed out.
So how do our New Hampshire elected officials square off?
Only Paul Hodes put up more bills calling for cuts then spending increases.
It's actually Judd Gregg the Republican right now holding the worst record putting up bills calling for $531 billion in new spending offset by only around $4 billion in bills supporting cuts.
Carol Shea Porter is currently our second biggest spender pushing for $160 billion more in spending then in cuts. Jeanne Shaheen pushed for just $45 billion in spending increases. Jeanne however put up the fewest bills pushing for spending cuts of all four elected officials, calling for just $705 million in cutting.