Congress's $1.7 Trillion Boondoggle, or Not?
It's not all bad, especially the hike in defense spending. But it makes a solid case against wasteful "earmarks." And where's the money to bolster our southern border?
I’ve spent most of my 40-plus year professional career inside or outside of Congress, from serving as a Senate official to helping elect dozens of GOP House and Senate Members and then lobbying them. I get the three-dimensional chess that never seems to end, especially about appropriation and authorization bills. Sausage-making, indeed.
Now that I’m on the outside looking in, especially at this $1.7 trillion “consolidated appropriations act,” timely festooned as a ginormous Christmas tree, I’m reminded of President Harry Truman’s quip about economists. “Give me a one-handed economist,” he is reputed to have said.” All my economists say 'on hand...', then 'but on the other...”
At the risk of sounding like a two-handed economist, there’s much to like about this gargantuan spending monstrosity if you’re willing to overlook its odious and offensive aspects. It reminds me of walking the sidewalks of downtown San Francisco. While gazing at its stunning architecture, you might want to watch where you step.
It has completely turned me against any notion that Congress should bring back “earmarks” - the ability of individual Members of Congress to steer taxpayer dollars to specific projects in their states and districts.
And let’s confirm again that the congressional budget process is a bad joke. This is not remotely close to how Congress is supposed to do its job, at least concerning budget, authorization, and appropriations bills. Then again, I’m hard-pressed to remember the last time they finished work on a budget,13 separate major appropriations bills, and a “reconciliation” bill before starting a new fiscal year (October 1-September 30).
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell declared victory as the compromise was unveiled earlier this week. As reported by TheHill.com:
“The administration wanted to cut funding for our armed forces after inflation while massively increasing spending on nondefense. Republicans have taken the president’s bizarre position and flipped it on its head,” he said on the Senate floor.
McConnell said the bill, which will be released to the public on Monday afternoon, “provides a substantial real-dollar increase to the defense baseline and a substantial real-dollar cut to the nondefense, non-veterans baseline.”
Republican sources say the boost in defense-related spending compared to what they’re calling the “real-dollar cut” to nondefense spending is more dramatic when the generous increase in spending on military veterans, which is classified on the nondefense side of the spending ledger, is factored in.
McConnell also highlighted the fact that the omnibus is expected to exclude what he called “left-wing goodies,” such as the Safe Banking Act, which would prohibit federal regulators from penalizing financial institutions that do business with legitimate cannabis-related businesses.
“The bipartisan bill that our colleagues have negotiated equips our armed forces with the resources they need while cutting nondefense, non-veterans spending in real dollars,” he said. “This is a strong outcome for Republicans, and much more importantly, it’s the outcome that our nation’s security needs.”
And sure enough, Senate Democratic Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) whined about the lack of domestic spending compared to defense spending in the bill.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) expressed disappointment on Monday afternoon that nondefense social spending programs will receive a smaller increase than defense programs but he noted that Democrats didn’t have much leverage to insist on parity.
McConnell is “in a bargaining position,” Durbin said, and “taking advantage of his leverage.”
“I don’t like it but we’re in a pretty desperate situation,” Durbin added, referring to the Democrats’ loss of the House majority in the midterm elections.
McConnell’s “bargaining position” was the threat of a filibuster and, apparently, an incoming House GOP majority. Democrats needed 50 votes plus ten Republican Senators to avoid one. Twenty-one GOP Senators voted to proceed to the spending bill (not all may vote for final passage, but Democrats won’t likely need them). Some of those 21 may surprise you, but each weighs their priorities against the pork. This is how it works.
Given our growing threat from China, the growth in defense spending is mostly welcome. New military fighter jets, including 19 F-35s. It includes eight F-18s that the Navy doesn’t want. It funds 11 new battle force naval ships for our badly-depleted Navy. It also sets in motion the construction of 15 new modern destroyers. It provides a 4.6 pay increase for military personnel. And much more. Yes, including another generous traunch of cash involving the war in Ukraine, including $13 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion to resettle Ukrainian refugees in the US.
The domestic politics of this, of course, stinks to high heaven. Like being out after midnight, nothing good happens in Congress immediately after an election. This bill is no exception. It was mainly crafted by two retiring Senators, Appropriations chair and Senate President Pro Tempore Pat Leahy (D-VT) and his ranking Republican, Richard Shelby (R-AL), who will never face voters again. GOP leader McConnell, Shelby, and other supporting GOP Senators ignored entreaties from House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy for a smaller stop-gap bill and time for their new majority to weigh. So much for that.
There is genuine concern that the House GOP, thanks to five members of their “Knucklehead Caucus” (h/t Hugh Hewitt) who oppose McCarthy’s nomination as Speaker, would be hampered from acting at the start of the new Congress. Under House rules, the election of a Speaker is paramount to establishing rules and organizing committees. McCarthy needs all but four GOP members to win the election. He’ll probably get enough of them with an array of last-minute concessions. But in the meantime, McCarthy and his troops are wasting valuable time better invested in preparing their legislative agenda next year.
Speaking of bad optics, billions of dollars are wasted under the guise of “earmarks.” US Rep. and Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy (R-TX) lists many below. At a minimum, the new GOP majority should eliminate this sordid and malevolent misuse of tax dollars as the first order of business after they reopen the Capitol to the public.
The argument for earmarks goes something like this, courtesy of my friend Mark Strand, who heads the Congressional Institute:
By not directing federal funds to their districts, Members of Congress shirk one of the primary responsibilities given to them by the Constitution: the power of the purse. Congress is a legislative body. It is also the branch of government closest to the people and therefore should be the most familiar with funding needs.
Read these earmarks below and see if you agree. Talk about shirking responsibility as stewards of taxpayer dollars. There may be nothing inherently wrong with these projects, but why am I subsidizing them when we have a $31.4 trillion public debt? We’re now spending nearly $500 billion annually to service that debt.
Investing these dollars in security and enforcement of our southern border would be better, an urgent need that didn’t fare so well (not a dime) in this pork fest—just money to further facilitate the movement and resettlement of illegal immigrants into the United States. Oh, it apparently does include border security funding . . . for other countries.
Washington Post columnist and conservative (one of three there) Henry Olsen makes this case for Members of Congress to hold their noses and vote for this:
Conservatives are right to be upset over the omnibus spending package released Tuesday morning. They should back it regardless.
The package falls short of ideal in both substance and process. It expands domestic spending well beyond what it should, especially given the dramatic spending hikes Democrats pushed through in the past two years. The bill is also being foisted upon members at the last minute, once again preventing them from adequately scrutinizing a gargantuan legislative package. A functioning Congress would not routinely pass the world’s most important budgeting bill like a thief in the night.
But politics is always about the possible, and that’s where conservative opposition to the package falls short. The question isn’t whether this bill measures up; it is about whether there is a preferable alternative. The answer, sadly, is that there are no better ways forward.
Because Democrats will continue to control the Senate, they have effective veto power on any spending packages they don’t find palatable regardless of who controls the House. In other words, it is unlikely Republicans would get anything better even if they waited to take control of the House.
I dunno about that. Congress could have adopted a short-term continuing resolution for 30 days, giving a House GOP majority time to get their act together and weigh in, including eliminating those 87,000 new IRS agents congressional Democrats authorized earlier this year (or, maybe, moving them to the Customs and Border Protection Service). I get that continuing resolutions (maintaining current funding levels for a short period) are anathema, and Congress still might produce a bad bill. Still, at least the stench would likely not be so putrid. Too late for that now.
See all 55 projects here, courtesy of Rep. Roy via Twitter.
The $1.7 trillion omnibus would funnel BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to woke pet projects from members like AOC & Hakeem Jeffries.
Then why are some Senate Republicans planning to vote for it?
Here are 55 terrible earmarks that NO REPUBLICAN should vote for🐖🧵:
The omnibus bill will funnel MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to LGBT groups peddling radical gender ideology - many of those $$$ will go to orgs that target YOUTH
You won’t believe how ridiculous some of these earmarks are⬇️⬇️⬇️🚨$105,000 for a “mentoring program for LGBTQ youth” at Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh
🚨$1,000,000 for Zora’s House, a “coworking and community space built by and for women and gender expansive people of color” in Ohio
🚨$500,000 to Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth, Inc.
🚨$1,200,000 for “centers to support LGBT students” in California’s San Diego Community College District.
🚨$113,520 to the LGBT Center of Greater Reading, PA for “wrap-around services and support for at-risk youth”
🚨$523,345 for Compass LGBTQ Youth and Family Services in Lake Worth Beach, FL to provide “behavioral health and wraparound services”
🚨$856,000 for “facilities and equipment” at an NY LGBT Center - a @SenSchumer / @SenGillibrand pet project
🚨$1,500,000 for the LOFT LGBTQ+ Community Center New Home Project in New York
🚨$750,000 for NY-based In Our Own Voices, Inc. - which aims to “strengthen the voices” of LGBT people of color and increase their “capacity for combating oppression and marginalization” - to fund “Transitional Housing and Services” for LGBT and “gender non-conforming” people
🚨$663,250 for the New York Historical Society / American LGBTQ+ Museum Partnership Project - an @RepAOC earmark
🚨$250,000 to support “WI’s First-In-The-Nation Gay Rights Law (1982) Book and Archive”
This omnibus funds all manner of fantasy climate ideology - a dream come true for far-left members like @RepAOC who constantly whine about “climate change” and “environmental justice”🍃
And don’t forget $3.6 million for the new “Michelle Obama Trail.” Yay! US Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) has a similar list of egregious items. I presume he was a “no” vote as well. I probably would be, too.
One more point to add. If they would go back to regular order and have the Appropriations Committee report out individual appropriations bills for cabinet departments like they are supposed to (or grouped together in 2s and 3s -- there were 12 individual appropriations bills back when I worked up there), rather than lumping all of them into one omnibus, they would avoid the sticker shock of one bill at $1.7 trillion and save themselves some headache.