Rep. Packard Earns Nod as Top Cost Cutter in D.C. : Government: Taxpayer organization ranks the Oceanside Republican No. 1 in Congress for his support of legislation that would save money.
A taxpayer group has anointed Rep. Ron Packard as the most fiscally conservative member of Congress, based on his sponsorship and co-sponsorship of cost-saving legislation.
The Oceanside Republican has attached his name to bills that, if they were all passed, would save taxpayers $35.6 billion, according to a report by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation released Monday.
But Packard’s stinginess--at least by this measure--has become more pronounced since the organization began tracking congressional spending and saving habits. In the group’s first study in December, 1991, Packard--like every single member of Congress--was designated as a net “spender.”
While a record of sponsorship of cost-saving legislation by itself puts no dent in the country’s $400-billion deficit, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation said its reports encourage members to practice what they preach.
“It’s walkin’ the talk,” said Paul Hewitt, vice president of the NTUF. “These studies show that some congressmen live up to their rhetoric. Packard is one of a lonely group.”
Hewitt said many congressmen took the first study “very seriously” after being dubbed “spenders,” particularly those who fashion themselves to be tight-fisted with the taxpayers’ money.
A second study was issued in April of this year. The most recent report covers bills introduced by July 3.
While Hewitt conceded that some congressmen may be guilty of excessive zeal in signing on to cost-saving legislation to improve their standing in the NTUF’s eyes, he hoped that such blatant political moves were the exception.
“We hope that the sponsorships of spending bills are insincere and sponsorships of cost-saving bills are sincere. We recognize that members are subject to a lot of public pressure and want to appear to be doing the right thing. Some say that’s the genius of the institution, some say it’s the downfall.”
Packard, who has been cited by other groups for his fiscal conservatism, said in a prepared statement, “It’s nice to be recognized by the NTUF, but we aren’t going to eliminate the $400-billion deficit . . . unless every member of Congress does his share.”
The study used a computerized data base of the cost estimates for all legislation introduced in the House this session, cross-indexed to each member’s sponsorship or co-sponsorship.
Hewitt said that more than half of the cost estimates come from sponsors themselves. The rest come from the text of the legislation and the Congressional Budget Office.
And given the intense political pressure to cut spending, some estimates may not be entirely reliable, Hewitt said.
“A classic case is national health care. One plan is estimated at $503 billion and another, virtually identical, plan is estimated at $236 billion.”
Among the San Diego delegation, Packard stands head and shoulders above his colleagues--at least according to the NTUF’s calculations. After favoring $8.8 billion in spending increases in December, 1991, he whittled his April figure to a mere $700 million.
Then Packard zoomed to the top of the NTUF list by favoring bills totaling $35.6 billion in possible savings.
“A lot of congressmen talk about reducing spending, but Congressman Packard seems to be doing more than any other to follow through,” said Hewitt.
A Packard aide said Tuesday that the sequence of bills explains some of the congressman’s move from “spender” to “saver.”
During the first reporting period, Packard favored removing the Social Security earnings cap. The Administration estimates the legislation would cost $5.4 billion, but Packard believes it would actually save money by stimulating the economy.
“After that, he voted for a lot of deficit-reducing bills,” said Carole Suarez, Packard’s press secretary.
To the NTUF, Packard’s three Republican colleagues are “spenders.”
The latest figures for Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Coronado) show him in favor of $9 billion in spending increases. His previous totals were $7.8 billion in April and $10.4 billion in December, 1991.
Retiring Rep. Bill Lowery’s (R-San Diego) figures were $18.3 billion, $8.1 billion, $6.6 billion, respectively.
The biggest San Diego “spender” in the current NTUF report was Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego) with $22.1 billion in increases. He earlier totals were $10.1 billion in April and $6.3 billion in December, 1991.
Hewitt said the study shows the average Republican in the House favors spending increases of $10.2 billion. The average for Democrats comes in at $115.2 billion.
