Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent is gathering signatures on a letter asking Speaker Paul Ryan to intervene in House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black’s plan to cut $200 billion in mandatory spending from the GOP budget. | Getty Centrist Republicans mobilize against draft GOP budget

Centrist House Republicans are lining up to oppose a draft GOP budget aimed at curbing entitlement spending — and threatening to vote against the plan if they don't get a bipartisan deal to increase spending caps.

Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is gathering signatures on a letter asking Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to intervene in House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black’s plan to cut $200 billion in mandatory spending in the GOP budget.


The Tuesday Group letter — which sources say has about 20 signatories so far — warns that the Tennessee Republican’s proposal is “not practical” and “could imperil tax reform,” according to a draft of the letter obtained by POLITICO. The letter also encourages GOP leaders to work with Democrats to reach a budget agreement setting higher spending levels for fiscal 2018 — something the letter suggests could be paired with a vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Without such a deal, some moderates may not support the budget, according to the letter.

“[A]bsent such a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, we are reticent to support any budget resolution on the House floor,” the letter reads.

If all 20 moderates truly vote against such a budget, that's nearly enough to block it from passage. House Republicans can afford to lose only 23 Republican votes when they bring their fiscal blueprint to the floor. And leaders know a number of conservatives will likely never support the proposal, which they think doesn't go far enough in taking an axe to federal spending.

The centrists’ pushback is the latest obstacle for Black, who has struggled for weeks to unveil a budget that all parts of the Republican Conference can support.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Eager to appeal to conservatives and use the GOP’s majorities to curb spending, Black crafted a fiscal blueprint that would instruct other committees to roll back spending on things like food stamps, farm subsidies, housing allowances and veterans programs. She wants to use the budget’s procedural powers to fast-track those cuts alongside a GOP tax package later in the year.

But the chairmen who would be tasked with making such cuts have balked. Black has already lowered her targeted cuts from $500 billion to $200 billion.

Even that lower figure worries the moderates, who are also concerned the spending cuts will complicate tax reform efforts.

“While fiscal responsibility and long-term budget stability is essential, requiring hundreds of billions — as much as $200 billion by some accounts — in budget savings from mandatory spending programs in the reconciliation package is not practical and will make enacting tax reform even more difficult than it already will be,” the draft letter reads.

Some traditional Republicans are stunned by the centrists' opposition.

"If you run on any kind of Republican, fiscal responsibly ideas, if not this, what?” asked Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.). "If you always say, ‘We can’t cut here, we can’t trim here,’ and stymie this, then what do we do? Keep on spending and taking people’s tax dollars?"

Black received some good news Thursday, however. She reached a deal with a key GOP chairman who aggressively opposed her mandatory cuts: House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway. The Texas Republican told reporters that he’d settled with Black on a savings target, though he wouldn’t get into specifics.

"As far as Ag Committee and Budget, we're done," he said.

Hard-line conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus, meanwhile, are arguing that those $200 billion worth of cuts may not be enough. They want even more mandatory savings, for fear that a bipartisan budget deal — like the kind the Tuesday Group is calling for — will be reached later this year to raise spending caps.

“There’s going to be a big spending increase in discretionary spending,” said House Freedom Caucus leader Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “And we’re going to save only $150 billion to $200 billion over 10 years?”

That does seem to be the direction Congress is moving. In early May, more than 141 House Republican defense hawks asked GOP leadership in a letter to raise spending caps on the Pentagon.

Tuesday Group members, well aware that any spending agreement will require eight Senate Democrats to overcome a filibuster, know any deal will likely mean increases for nondefense spending programs championed by Democrats. They also know that lawmakers will need to raise the debt ceiling in the coming months, a painful vote for Republicans that a few dozen House GOP centrists will more than likely have to carry over the threshold with Democrats.

Some members argue GOP leaders should create a single spending and debt limit package, and just get it over with. At least that’s exactly what Dent has been telling leadership and Trump administration officials for the past few months.

“I said, ‘Take this back to the White House: We need to do a bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement, and I’d put the debt ceiling in, and I’d do it before August,” Dent said in a brief interview Thursday. "It’s just a matter of when. I’m pushing for sooner rather than later.”

The idea has also gained traction in the Senate, where GOP insiders say debt ceiling legislation will likely originate. But knowing their more conservative conference, House leaders have avoided the topic at all costs, saying they're focused solely on a budget and health care.

The Tuesday Group’s letter, depending on how many signatories are included, could provide GOP leaders some cover should they decide to engage in deal-making with Democrats. However, such a move would invite conservative resistance from the Freedom Caucus as well as traditional GOP leadership allies.