Democratic Reps. (clockwise from top left) Gary Peters (Mich.), John Adler (N.J.), Jim Himes (Conn.) and Peter Welch (Vt.), are becoming more vocal with their concerns about government spending. | AP photo composite by POLITICO Four House Dems revolt

Four junior House Democrats frustrated with leadership’s approach to deficit spending are going rogue.

Reps. Gary Peters, John Adler (D-N.J.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) are getting more vocal on their concerns about government spending. They’re forming a working group to propose major cuts to spending in areas like defense, energy, housing and agriculture that they say would save about $70 billion over ten years.

“We have been growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of action and talking about specifics and putting those on the table,” Peters said in an interview with POLITICO. “We’ve been frustrated with both Democratic leadership and Republicans,” the Michigan congressman added.


Peters’s office contacted Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office Monday but didn’t get a response about whether he would lend support to the group, called the Spending Cuts and Deficit Reduction Working Group.

“I don’t know if they’ll be making any statements tomorrow,” Peters said. “Right now, this is an initiative that the four of us feel very strongly about. As we build momentum, leadership will definitely take notice and take some action. I’m not sure of the degree of support now.”

Peters’s press secretary, Cullen Schwarz, was more blunt, sounding off after failing to hear back from Hoyer’s office.

“Our leadership hasn’t put any serious budget cuts on the table so we had to take matters into our own hands. Long story short: No, we have no support from our leadership, and to this point neither they nor the Republicans have put their money where their mouth is on spending cuts,” he said in an e-mail. “We’re upset.”

The members have expressed their concerns in meetings with leadership earlier this year and pushed to trim a spending and tax cuts bill that started out costing almost $200 billion. Peters, New Jersey's Adler and Himes of Connecticut, are all members of the New Democrat Coalition, who aren’t afraid to express opinions differing from those of Democratic leaders. For example, as the conference committee was pushing the financial reform bill to the finish line, House New Democrat Coalition members expressed concern about a derivatives trading provision they thought was too harsh on banks.

At the same time, Peters, Adler and Himes benefit from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Frontline” program, which funnels money from well-established Democrats to those in traditionally Republican districts.

Himes defeated Republican Chris Shays in 2008 to get the spot, which Shays had held since 1987. Peters represents historically Republican Detroit suburbs, while Adler hails from what is considered New Jersey’s swing district.

Peters voted for a domestic spending freeze last July, while Himes joined four other freshmen in May signing a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that called for reducing the budget. Adler cited concerns about health care costs when voting against the health care reform bill in March.

None of the members are Blue Dogs, who are traditionally known for their concern about government spending.

Peters, Adler, Himes and Welch of Vermont are sending letters to Democrats and Republicans in the House Tuesday morning, asking them to join the group and propose ideas for cutting spending.

One of the group’s proposals would end funding for three systems that the Department of Defense supports eliminating. That would save $2.6 billion in 2011.

Hoyer said last month that Democrats need to examine defense spending to deal with growing deficits.

“We’re lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending, and taxation without bankrupting our country,” he said in a speech June 22.

Peters said Democrats need to consider suggestions that cut spending, even if their districts stand to lose federal funds.

“Certainly if it impacts their districts, folks will not be as open to that,” he said. “We’ve got to try not to protect sacred cows anymore.”