Tag Archives: appropriations bill

The Slant On This Story Is Very Subtle

Posted on by

Remember when Fox News was conservative? Those days are gone. On Monday, Fox News posted an article about the coming budget battle in Congress. Unfortunately Congress has not followed its own budge procedures since 2008, one of many reasons the federal deficit has grown so fast.

The article states:

The ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus is signaling it will not help Congress avoid a government shutdown next month unless a short-term spending bill is linked to a bill requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

First of all the House Freedom Caucus is not ultra-conservative. They are conservative, period. Ten years ago they probably would have been considered middle of the road. Just for the record, why is requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote a problem?

The article continues:

The House GOP rebels are also calling for a short-term spending plan to extend until the new year, at which point allies of former President Trump hope he will be in the White House again. 

That puts the group in direct opposition to their more traditional GOP colleagues, including House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., who suggested last month that he would want to finish the government funding process by the end of 2024.

With just six of 12 individual appropriations bills having passed the House, and none yet in the Senate, it is all but certain that a short-term extension of the current year’s funding levels will be needed to keep the government open past the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

…The House passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act last month with five Democrats voting with every single House Republican in passing the bill. 

However, it is opposed by the White House and likely will not get a vote in the Democratically-held Senate, meaning its inclusion in a final CR would be fighting an uphill battle.

Cole told reporters last month that he would prefer something with wider bipartisan appeal, like supplemental disaster relief funding, to be attached to a CR instead.

“I haven’t really thought about it yet, it’s not a big deal to me. But again, if it can’t pass the Senate, it isn’t going to be an effective CR,” Cole said when asked about the SAVE Act. “So a real CR, you know, I’m more interested actually in disaster relief. That’s something that I think the two sides can come together on.”

It would be nice if someone in Washington would do their job and get back to the prescribed budget process.

 

So What Do We Do Now?

Posted on by

The courts seem to move slowly. Most of the time that’s not an issue, but we have a court case right now where the timing matters. It will be interesting to see what the next step is. Also, at what point is Congress required to follow the U.S. Constitution and what are the consequences when they don’t?

On Tuesday, Just the News reported:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday secured a major victory in his challenge to the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package passed in 2022, with a court declaring that the bill was approved unconstitutionally.

President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 in December of the prior year. The measure effectively set the federal budget for the year by wrapping the 12 annual appropriations bills into a single piece of legislation. Paxton, however, had argued that the House’s passage of the measure was unconstitutional as less than half of the lower chamber’s members were physically present to vote on it. Many lawmakers who were not present voted by proxy. Paxton had specifically challenged stipulations in the bill that affect his state.

“Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law. In response, the defendants claim, among other things, that this Court has no power to address the issue because it cannot look to extrinsic evidence to question whether a bill became law,” the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division wrote. “But because the Court is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution—rather than second-guessing a vote count—the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.”

So what happens now? Does this matter?

The article concludes:

The Texas Public Policy Foundation served as co-counsel in the case.

“The Court correctly concluded that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution because a majority of House members was not physically present when the $1.7 trillion spending bill was passed. Proxy voting is unconstitutional,” TPPF senior attorney Matt Miller said.

A Possible Resolution To The Debt Ceiling Crisis

Posted on by

On Sunday, Breitbart reported that Congress has released the details of the debt deal agreement that should avoid a government shutdown. As was to be expected, there are some good things and some bad things. There is also some griping from people who don’t want any compromise. Although I can identify with those people, I think the deal we got was the best we were going to get. The only thing that really will prevent a government shutdown by the Biden administration is the polls that are showing that the Biden administration would be blamed for that shutdown. The Democrats control two branches of government, so it makes it hard to blame the Republicans for much.

The article reports:

Congress released a bill package Sunday to increase the nation’s debt limit in exchange for a number of Republicans’ desired spending cuts and other concessions.

House lawmakers will have three days to review the 99-page bill, called the Fiscal Responsibility Act, before they are set to vote for it as soon as Wednesday. The bill can be viewed here.

House GOP leadership said in a statement that the legislation, which raises the debt ceiling through January 2025, included a “historic series of wins.”

“The Fiscal Responsibility Act does what is responsible for our children, what is possible in divided government, and what is required by our principles and promises,” the leaders said. “Only because of Republicans’ resolve did we achieve this transformative change to how Washington operates.”

The bill rescinds funds that have been allocated toward COVID, mandates student loan payments to resume in August, rescinds a portion of unused funding allocated toward the IRS, expands work requirements for certain welfare recipients, and tightens permitting processes under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The bill also caps discretionary spending for the next two years and includes a provision pushed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to force Congress into funding the government through 12 appropriations bills rather than one omnibus bill.

The good things I see are the resumption of student loan payments, rescinding COVID funds, and funding the government through appropriations bills rather than one omnibus bill. If those three things remain in the final bill, then we have made some progress.

UPDATE: The bill passed the House last night. It’s not a great bill, but it’s not an awful bill. It is probably the best we can do right now.