Congress Plans To Spend $1.5 Trillion This Year, Continues To Pretend the Deficit Doesn't Matter
Democrats hail the new budget agreement as "the largest increase in non-defense discretionary spending in four years" while Republicans tout a big boost in military spending. Everyone wins!

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Congress has reached a bipartisan agreement to hike spending across the board.
Lawmakers unveiled a $1.5 trillion spending package on Wednesday morning that would keep the federal government funded through the end of the fiscal year by hiking spending on just about everything. The plan "would substantially boost funding for the military and nearly every non-defense agency, growing domestic spending to $730 billion, an almost 7 percent increase over current funding. The measure would boost national defense coffers to $782 billion, about a 6 percent increase," Politico reports.
The 2,700-page bill also includes $14 billion in "emergency funding" to help Ukraine, including $3.5 billion for new military equipment to be sent to Ukraine—because apparently the Pentagon's $782 billion budget isn't big enough to include that—and another $15 billion in COVID-19 relief funds.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) hailed the agreement as "the largest increase in non-defense discretionary spending in four years."
Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Shelby (R–Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, lauded the package for including "dollar-for-dollar parity for defense and non-defense increases," adding that the bill "effectively addresses Republican priorities."
Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the federal government ran a $475 billion deficit over the first five months of the fiscal year, which began in October. That's an average of $3 billion per day. And while it's true that this year's deficit is unlikely to be anywhere near the record highs of the past two years, the CBO's projections show persistently high deficits for the rest of the decade and beyond.
That projection, of course, is based on current law—in other words, it does not take into account additional spending like what's contained in the new budget agreement. Hiking spending will only inflate future deficits and add to the $30 trillion national debt.
But there's probably not going to be time for a robust discussion of those issues before this bill becomes law. "Party leaders hoped to whip the 2,741-page measure through the House on Wednesday and the Senate by week's end, though that chamber's exact timing was unclear," reports CBS News. "Lawmakers were spurred by the urgency of helping Ukraine before Russia's military might makes it too late."
Yes, there's nothing like a war—even one that the U.S. is not directly fighting—to get lawmakers to spend like there's no tomorrow.
The federal government's inability to balance it budget is its own formidable national security challenge. Every dollar that must be spent to pay for interest on the national debt is a dollar that can't be used to fund the military or domestic spending programs in the future. Higher-than-expected inflation makes that calculation even more worrisome, since inflation is likely to push interest rates up and higher interest rates will mean higher costs to service the national debt.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers tried to force their colleagues to pay attention to that problem. Last month, they requested that the government funding bill set up a commission to evaluate deficit-reduction policies. "We owe it to our children," the lawmakers wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), "to acknowledge our country's unsustainable fiscal trajectory and work together, across the aisle, to address it over time."
The text released Wednesday morning does not include those provisions. But that's probably not much of a surprise. If there are two things Congress can usually agree upon, it's spending more money and ignoring the obvious consequences of continuing to spend more money. This latest deal hits both marks.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Which is it -- did Congress pass a bill, or just "unveil" it?
Maybe you oughta work for the Daily Mail.
They passed it, but it's still veiled. (They haven't had time to read it yet.)
Oh well played sir!
[JOIN NOW] I really make A LOT OF MONEY ($200-$300/hour) online from my laptop. Last month I received almost $50,000. this line work is simple and straightforward. You don’t need to go to the office, it’s online work from home. qcr You become independent after joining this position. I really appreciate my friend who pointed.
...
It out to me SITE….., http://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Hafta pass it to see how much itll cost us.
Peter and Paul are robbing us.
Fuck Joe Biden
They passed it strategically but unveiled it reluctantly.
I'm not sure how they plan to do either around the Democrat party retreat Wednesday through Friday.
"If there are two things Congress can usually agree upon, it's spending more money and ignoring the obvious consequences of continuing to spend more money. This latest deal hits both marks."
Wunnerful. Just wunnerful. Two parties agreeing to speed up the race to the bottom.
It's what the American people want and vote for!
And, they're going to get it good and hard!
As if spending money they don't have is a good thing.
Taxes cant posssibly cover it so apparently its not " our money."
Our taxes just cover welfare payments. $8.4 T 2021
This is what your cunt rag self voted for bohem!
Did the republicans stick to their plan to have all vaccine mandates defunded?
I thought Romney and the usual suspects bailed on the vote.
Semi O/T - Destroyer can’t deploy because CO won’t get COVID vaccine, Navy says
Pretty amazing when the US Navy is blocked from removing a CO.
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... bans the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion.
Hmm. According to the government, it's just a jab. That doesn't seem like a substantial burden.
Pretty amazing that we are putting national defense at any risk, with the threat of war looming, over a vaccine mandate for a endemic that is currently waning and isn't all that lethal except for a small percentage of the population. Fixed it for you.
Potato / Flamingo
I dunno. You let one person decline the jab, pretty soon Big Pharma's out thousands of dollars!
Besides, military preparedness is already compromised pretty badly. Lower testing requirements, pregnancies, emotional issues...I've heard it said that up to 30% of our personnel are not mission ready.
Gen Milley didn't notice, he's still studying up on white rage or some shit.
Why did we up the defense budget again? Oh, yeah. Pork.
Who did you say you would vote for again Eric?
I think I asked indirectly about this in another Ukraine thread when certain posters were talking about how making Russia spend more and it wasn't good but in our best interests and I asked what was the consequences of us spending more to make that happen .
They cantvspend more. Their money is toilet paper. So its irrelevant.
PuXis rich, he doesnt care about " more."
Hes having a PuXi Riot.
> adding that the bill "effectively addresses Republican priorities."
So whenever I say "both sides", people laugh as if they think the Republicans really are for smaller government that spends less. Yet here we have a top Republican asserting that increased spending is a "Republican priority."
This is why I say both sides. The two sides may disagree over how to pay for all the spending, but they are in lock step agreement to spend like a drunken sailor who found out he still has checks in his checkbook.
You say both sides to defend th left. That's why people laugh at you.
Sometimes people laugh at him and then he points out that a republican said something that about a bill in a majority democrat government and it makes people laugh at him harder.
Get bent.
Yes, every Democrat in the WH since Carter has presided over cut in the deficit and every Republican has presided over an increase.
Bothsides that!
A bipartisan group of lawmakers tried to ... set up a commission to evaluate deficit-reduction policies. "We owe it to our children ... to acknowledge our country's unsustainable fiscal trajectory and work together, across the aisle, to address it over time."
Oh, FFS! Don't spend money on a commission, because the "unsustainable fiscal trajectory" will "address" *itself* over time. 8-(
7% increase.
10% inflation.
LOOK! We're cutting spending!!
Emergency measures can be taken to correct for that though.
IRs clusterhump.
Interesting their system crashed just after Boehner et al were caught using IRS to retaliate against the Tea Party. 2014.
He also used the BoE 8th D OH to keep challengers from running.
Oops. link:
https://www.atr.org/40-years-of-failure-irs-unable-to-fix-computer-system/
The IRS shouldn't have bothered with the Tea Party. It should have been the FBI. Now we know them to have been an astroturf insurgency funded by American oligarchs, which culminated (in its newest iteration) in the attack on the capitol.
So you say you are supportive of using federal police agencies to target people for their political speech? Wonder who else was in favor of that...
Tonys Dad Adolph...
When Charles Koch finally fulfills his lifelong dream of wiping his ass with an original copy of the constitution, that won't be an issue.
Don't bring up the Constitution, right after you were advocating for shitting all over it.
I just think the federal government should keep an eye on domestic extremists. Nobody's going to jail without committing a crime. It's about preventing such crimes as the Jan. 6th insurrection. Because once they burn down Congress and install some spray-tanned meat blob dictator, you're not going to have a first amendment anymore.
We don't get 1A anyway, what with your buddies in office.
Maybe consider taking a moment to think for yourself without any tribal political instincts informing your every gesture.
Do you really feel you don't have free speech right now? I mean, there's the entire internet for you to express your opinion to, and nobody's beating down your door to take you to prison for any of it.
Maybe this free speech thing is just bullshit hysteria being fed to you by a political party with no real ideas? Just something to consider.
Not if you get to it first, eh?
Race to see who can fascist harder.
Never go full retard.
Now we know them to have been an astroturf insurgency funded by American oligarchs, which culminated (in its newest iteration) in the attack on the capitol.
*squints*
Unable to tell if referring to Tea Party or FBI.
Orly? In the same way that BLM was a cynical, pointless, scam to convert the anger of stupid people and the guilt of amoral people into cash? That ended up being a front for Antifa "direct actions"??
I'm guessing your delusion about "pre-empted popular movements" is pretty fucking selective.
All the people I knew or spoke to who claimed to support the Tea Party, were mad at the same people, and mostly about the same things, that the Occupy movement was pissed about. Just as occupy got pre-empted for political gain by IdPol fanatics, maybe the Tea Party really WAS poisoned by oligarchic usurpation. I can accept that.
But that just shows the vulnerability of popular protest movements to be pre-empted by existing powers, rather than what you claim.
So...I haven't been keeping track. Isn't the score something like "Tony-2, Stupid-42,845"?
No worries! They'll just pluck a few more leaves off the Magic Money Tree!
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/08/west-gamble-financial-war-russia-00015156
I know it's Politico but worth reading despite that.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-03-09/ukraine-dilemma
This one is even more worth the read and is related to the first story I posted.
So advocate raising some taxes.
Jesus Christ people, how long do you think you can sustain this doubletalk? You're the ones not taking deficits seriously because you never advocate for doing anything about them other than erasing vast elements of modern civilization.
So your answer when inflation is hurting people's budget is to hurt those budgets even more by raising their taxes? Instead of cutting the number one driver of inflation, federal spending? That seems totally inconsequential to the economy.
Remember, Tony believes in new monetary theory. So he claims the government can deficit spend whatever it wants without problem. Of course, when the spending actually causes problems, he flips and then demands that people pay more in taxes to cover the completely reckless government spending.
It's this wonderful fantasy world where his righteousness is never wrong.
There's a $30 trillion national debt, yet the dollar stands, and I can still get almost literally anything I want delivered to my front porch. MMT describes more than it prescribes.
Not for much longer, oil prices are likely to cause a major shortage of drivers in the Gig economy and weaken already strained transportation. Keep vomiting up those empty talking points, they'll be the only comfort you'll have when we enter recession by the end of summer.
I guess I'm a bit of an outlier because I think fossil fuels should be so expensive that there is next to zero demand for them. No matter what the number on the pump says, we're not paying the cost.
And you would prefer the government made everyone agree with you, by force it necessary.
If by force you mean providing funding for schools and books so that people are educated enough to agree with me, then yes.
And this is why people hate you for being a sociopathic totalitarian.
You are a Nazi Tony. It is time to come to grips with reality.
See, now you're back to supporting it after acknowledging it was a problem and demanding more taxes. It must be nauseating to keep flip flopping so constantly on your stated positions.
I don't necessarily want tax hikes for the purpose of paying down debt right now, though I'd certainly do some rejiggering for other purposes. I'm just saying, if you want to pay down debt or zero out deficits, you raise taxes. It's the one solution to your problem.
So why argue for taxes at all? Government apparently can pay for everything without the need to impose taxes?
Good question. Taxes serve at least two functions: to incentivize the maintenance of a single currency and to redistribute wealth.
We don't have to do it that way if you have a better idea.
No, but I believe in taxes and actual economic theory.
Incentivizing the maintenance of a single currency? You'll have to expand on that because the only way the works is to contradict your belief in the government being able to pump out free money.
But we can easily redistribute wealth in your economic theory without taxes by having the government just pay the poor people until they are rich, right?
As long as the IRS only accepts dollars, people have to use dollars. That's the general idea.
You're right that taxing the rich is not necessary to pay for programs for the poor. It's important to realize that when taxes are taken, those dollars do not go into an account somewhere to be distributed by Congress. They simply disappear. Appropriation is a separate function of Congress and it need not have anything to do with revenues.
But we do, as a policy matter, want to limit the sheer amount of wealth any individual can have, in my opinion.
Tony : "Bread and circuses. Give me the lash!"
I haven't muted tony yet, despite his inane party line talking points, because his total lack of perceptiveness in regards to reality is amusing, and I like to see him talk himself into circles when he is confronted with reality. He's better at it than others like Raspberry and JF, who I have muted, because he doesn't just keep repeating the same things over and over, he actually changes in relation to your posts, to the point where he invariably says the opposite of what he initially posted, and I don't think he is even aware of it until someone points it out. I shouldn't get my jollies from watching him make a fool of himself day after day, but I'll ask God for forgiveness. Compared to some of my other sins, it's pretty minor.
He really is a lot of fun to read. Watching someone post so righteously only to turn around and contradict himself constantly is very entertaining.
he doesn't just keep repeating the same things over and over, he actually changes in relation to your posts, to the point where he invariably says the opposite of what he initially posted, and I don't think he is even aware of it until someone points it out
"See I told you it was Duck season!"
How many times do I have to explain that I place very little value in having strong opinions?
Oh, we know.
No strong convictions past the next election.
Says the man who has very strong opinions.
I think your problem is that you place little value in having consistent thought processes.
"It's going to cost the taxpayers NOTHING. Zero dollars."
Then Biden made a fucking white supremacist symbol and I had to REEEEE on out.
Federal spending is not the number one driver of inflation. That is more libertarian lies where you say federal spending is the cause of any and all problems up to and including your stubbed toe, and eliminating Social Security is the cure.
Unlike Senate policy guru Rick Scott, I do not support raising taxes on anyone who's not very rich.
Yeah, this time is completely different than every other period of sustained hyperinflation. Keep going with that uneducated take. No one is buying it except sycophantic idiots like you. And I am not a libertarian, more a classical liberal and constitutionalist.
This is not hyperinflation. I'm sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
Hyperinflation has both a technical meaning and a colloquial meaning. Sorry you don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, and when the first drops of water fall out of the sky, people like you will say “stop being so paranoid, this isn’t rain”.
Some people know when to find a roof. By now, we have plenty of reason to believe that finding a roof would be a good idea.
And 7% inflation fits neither. Do you have to be maximally hysterical about literally everything just because you're addicted to Fox & Friends?
Just so we can point and laugh at you, what do you think is driving inflation?
And don't say Russia, as it was over 7% inflation year over year before the war started. Also, don't say COVID, unless you mean COVID spending, as the COVID induced recession ended in spring of 2020, and the economy had nearly returned to prepandemic levels by December of 2020, with little to no, inflation. The inflation didn't start markedly rising until after two massive COVID spending bills.
And just so we're clear, don't say the subsequent growth in demand, starting in 2021, as that was largely fueled by massive federal handouts to everyone from the COVID spending bill, so even that is federal spending.
So I can't say anything other than the inane dogma you believe?
I don't think you know why you're hysterical about inflation. Just because right-wing media figures infuse very repetitive lies into your skull doesn't mean you've truly grasped an issue.
We have had some amount of extra cash in the economy due to Covid relief bills, but no economist will say that's the only driver of inflation, and you'd have to make the case for why we'd be better off if there had been no relief money. I can find news articles from the time of Biden's relief bill worrying that they won't be enough to prevent a major recession. Have we been in any recession?
So if it's not a wanton excess of cash, it must be higher prices. And look, we have higher prices for perfectly explicable reasons, namely, a global market disrupted by a global pandemic. I work in an industry with a particular supply-chain problem. It's still not fixed and I don't know when it will be.
Oil is its own thing and I don't give a fuck because I think it should be priced out of existence. Otherwise, you're paying more for your toilet papers and mayonaisses and such, but also largely cars (and specifically microchips). Apart from some probable price gouging, it's just a market doing what it's supposed to do, and you're acting like a crazy person because you've been told to.
Except most economists acknowledge that too much money from government spending contributed significantly to inflation. It's the reason the Fed is running to increase rates and pull money out of the system. It's the reason our inflation compared to others is greater.
You can try and pretend that government can just blow out spending withoit consequence, but such a position is so economically illiterate that it borders on the insane.
Nobody said the relief bills would be consequence-free. The alternative is no relief bills and possibly a depression. Is that what you would have preferred? You're allowed to. I'm not here to tell you what to value.
I have little patience for people of any political persuasion who think it's sufficient to complain about anything and everything that's happening without offering a superior alternative.
Inflation happens when demand exceeds the capacity of the economy to produce. That could be caused by extra cash, but I don't know about you, I spent my extra government cash long ago or stuck it in an account, I can't remember which.
Obviously demand exceeds production because production has been hampered by the pandemic. If the only thing you're choosing to complain about is people having a little extra cash to get by, then I encourage you to write your congresspeople and ask them to campaign on taking the relief money back.
Imagine there is a fire truck parked on the street with firemen holding hoses blasting water left and right and everywhere up and down the street are soaking wet people running away. It's like you're saying that those people could have gotten wet in any number of ways and in any case it doesn't matter because the water isn't going back in the hose.
The second relief bill was completely unnecessary. It was passed a year after the recession had ended, economic activity had returned mainly to prepandemic levels. GDP was up, stock market was up, inflation was low, commodities were steady. There was zero chance of a depression at the time it was passed.
Fine, so call your congressman and demand that they run their 2022 campaign on taking that money back. Again, I'm not here to tell you what policy priorities you should have.
It must be higher prices? Says the fuckheads who doesn't understand inflation causes higher prices, not is caused by higher prices. Wow, I can't even believe you typed that and thought you made a point other than showing how economically illiterate you are.
Higher prices (generally) is inflation. Inflation is not a magical cosmic entity.
Fuck your fucking straw man shit. Jebus, you start and end with straw arguments, don't you?
"...number one driver of inflation" Start by muddying the waters. What the fuck is this, a listicle? Is the ranking even significant? Or does it just sound good? (to you)
'libertarian lies where you say" Ah...Cathy Newman-shaped straw frump. "So...what you're saying is..."
"any and all problems" So...what you're saying is, every libertarian on every issue always blames everything on federal spending?"
"eliminating Social Security" (subtext: REEEEE!!) Dayum. You're making your straw men out of imaginary straw. Whoa, recursive.
Pretty amazing to pack this much bogus "argument" into a short post like that. Lots of practice, I'm guessing.
Also, "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."
All that needs to happen to prove me wrong is for you guys to advocate raising some taxes, every now and then, since that is the way you reduce deficits.
Fuck you, cut spending and get gov't the hell out of the way.
There is nothing the alphabet agencies have touched that hasn't turned to shit. Gov't does everything worse, behind schedule and for way more money than promised.
Noticed at the end of the article, “everyone wins”. Who, I wonder, makes up the above mentioned “everyone”.
Black Budgets Matter !
What comes after a trillion?
10 more just like it
Per Bush, it's "vermillions".
dude you never should have put into words why your vote went where it went.
Why is energy independence controversial? Why were global banks blocking investment firms and loans on fossil fuel companies? Why are high energy prices and rolling blackouts ok with Californians?
Oops wrong thread
Because Democrats Are Assholes.
Thats the answer to every question.
Congress Plans To Spend $1.5 Trillion This Year, Continues To Pretend the Deficit Doesn't Matter
Scott Shackford Plans To Spend More Money Grooming Children Without Parents' Permission, Continues To Pretend Deficits Don't Matter And That He's Libertarian
Fuck you, cut spending.
So, if Russia allies with China and we go to war with Russia over Ukraine, do we still owe China money?
Ideas!
In order to owe someone money they have to be able to enforce your repayment, so we don't owe China nothin.
And this is why everyone loathes faithless progressives.
The idiocy of the the government free money tree is just astounding.
We are talking about Treasury bonds, yes?
Money printer go brrrrrr
Is it even possible for this nation to dig it's way out of $30 trillion in debt?
I get the feeling Congress knows it is not, the only out is a total financial/government collapse, and starting over with new currency, a new government and zero debt. Therefore they figure just keep spending, and see where it all ends.
Of course it is. It's easy. You simply inflate your way to the point where $30 trillion dollars can buy a cup of coffee and boom. Debt fixed.
Venezuelan coffee
We just dont have the funny TV image dictator like they had with Hugo, we have a dried up senile bag of dust.
Your answer made me laugh, but it is not far different from Obama's wanting a trillion dollar coin idea. It is hard to believe we have such idiots in as the US President. And why? Because the average voter knows nothing about policy.
Back during the debt ceiling debates of the Obama Administration, some economists and other commentators came up with a proposal to solve the problem: For a single coin to be minted by the Treasury, worth over a trillion dollars, and be deposited to the Federal Reserve in order to solve the crisis.
Total economic lunacy.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) hailed the agreement as "the largest increase in socialism spending in four years."
As the left continues to cheer on that Nazi-Regime building fund!!!
"the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported .... the federal government ran a $475 billion !!-deficit-!! .... That's an average of $3 billion per day."
- Divided by 161M working citizens; $18.63/day, $577.60/mo, $6900/yr.... ON CREDIT CARD DEBT.....
- PLUS $1.5T / 161M working citizens; $9,316/yr taxed
Dear WORKING Citizens, Your USA Nazi-Regime is charging you $16,216/yr, $1,351/mo, $43.60/day for membership fees. That's JUST your federal government.
Is it worse that the democrat hails a big increase of spending or the republican praises it because he got dollar for dollar just as much as the democrat?
Yes.
Google, how many days to midterm elections?
Google says, "In 243 days."
Oh sweet summer child...do you really think there's going to be an election? It's happening! This year. A REAL coup, without even the no-bombs, no-guns, no-armor, no-plan type "insurrection" of the day that will live in infamy.
Dunno what pretext will be used. They may be hoping for a new Covid strain. Maybe an economic collapse? Concerns that Russia is tainting our voter registration rolls? Actual war?
I don't see the Dems giving up power willingly, ever again.
They also pretend it doesn't cause inflation. People are just dumb. I didn't realize how dumb but the last two years prove it.
It doesnt.
They arent using money. Its computer credits.
They spread the same inflation lie in 2012 when inflation was a historic low of 0.8%
Forbes said it wasnt money. Money Printing Myth.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/20/the-myth-that-the-fed-is-printing-money/?sh=25f4430b2810
And Left Wing media worshipping morons believe it...
And Proof youre LYING:
"Jan 2022: 21,840.1 Billion"
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
Thats the M2... real money. Inflation is increase in money supply not used.
NOT TRILLIONS
Youre telling the exact same LIE the Liberal Media ran in 2012.
Inflation?? I see no inflation.... /s
lmao.... See daveca, Point & Case for, "People are just dumb."
Oliar- Biden - sell illegal arms to Terrorists in Mexico. Gun Runner. Multiple felonies committed. 202 people killed.
Biden 2022- no help for Ukraine.
Communists will commune.
Well the deficits don't matter crowd have been correct so far. Like blowing up a balloon a little more at time. You get away with it for a while but then it is total destruction.