Congress Is Aiming To Avoid Another Shutdown by Spending More on Almost Everything
The bill includes $1 million for new elevators at New York City's Metropolitan Opera, among other wasteful earmarks.
With the possibility of another government shutdown looming before the end of the month, Congress appears likely to take the easy way out: spend more money on everything.
The House of Representatives passed a set of spending bills on Thursday afternoon that would keep the government open through the end of the fiscal year in September. If those bills make it through the Senate and become law (a process that could be complicated by a major winter storm that is approaching Washington, D.C.), they would hike total discretionary spending to $1.7 trillion this year. That would be a $24 billion increase from a year ago.
The spending package includes several wasteful earmarks, including $1 million for new elevators at the Metropolitan Opera Association in New York City, which has an annual operating budget of over $330 million and access to lots of deep-pocketed donors.
The new spending levels will exceed by about $50 billion the nonbinding "targets" set by the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2023, notes Dominik Lett, a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Mostly, the package represents a missed opportunity, Lett argues, as it leaves out proposed anti-fraud reforms (which are desperately needed), and does not impose any binding spending limits. In other words, despite full Republican control of government, the bill does nothing to improve or ensure long-term fiscal responsibility in Washington.
However, there are a few spending cuts in the package, including a $115 million reduction in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a $1.8 billion cut in funding for the Border Patrol, both of which were included to secure enough Democratic votes to pass the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. That bill passed on a thin 220–207 vote, with seven Democrats supporting the measure and Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) as the lone Republican opposed to it.
About the best thing that can be said of the House's passage of these discretionary spending bills is that it makes this year one of the rare instances where all 12 spending bills have made it through Congress. That's a positive sign, but one that ultimately means little if the bills themselves don't cut spending or set strong parameters for future budgets.
Discretionary spending represents less than one-third of all federal spending these days, but it is the portion of the budget that is the easiest to cut—particularly since Congress has no interest in addressing the so-called "mandatory spending" on entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. The fact that spending continues to rise, even with Republican majorities in both chambers, is a bad sign for anyone who favors fiscal responsibility.
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
""Congress Is Aiming To Avoid Another Shutdown by Spending More on Almost Everything""
Sounds like government at work.
Stop re-electing anyone.
I would dearly love a "None Of The Above" ballot option which, if it won, would require the seat to be left unfilled until the next election.
Of course that would only result in your state having fewer representatives and getting even less government largess. The answer is not more responsive legislators, its less government. Much of what the federal government does can be gotten rid of or returned to the States.
Which party has majorities in both house of Congress?
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather have a shutdown.
Even if the budget was balanced I would prefer a shutdown.
Shut'er down!
I can’t help but think that we wouldn’t have these problems if we just got rid of the democrats.
Could you show on this doll where the Democrats touched you?
As a libertarian, I think that government spending is bad when they do it but good when we do it.
Sarc, you've been told this. When you have to start a thought "as a libertarian" to try to convince people you are one, you simply aren't.
Also I thought you were pretending not to be sarc. Oddly enough you never complained about the spending on illegals. You did complain about the spending reductions in the BBB and the DOGE audits though.
He’s just so pathetic, malignant, and worthless.
You misspelled ‘marxist traitor’.
You’re as libertarian as shrike, which is to say none at all.
"Many Democrats are touting funding wins for their districts in the various appropriations bills. And despite the speaker arguing that the bills are in line with his party’s policies, DeLauro told reporters Wednesday that Democrats reversed cuts in the bills for dozens of programs that Republicans wanted to eliminate."
You're 100% correct. Is is VERY SAD that Republicans are caving to the Democrats just to keep the Gov - Gun THEFT of it's citizens alive.
Here's a thought. Maybe the US Constitution set-up the system the way it did so Government would LOCK-UP when [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] got out of hand. Instead these RINO'S are claiming a LOCK-UP would be terrible in the USA so they just keep giving more inches to the Gov-THEFT lobby.
Yes, they are all weasels or invertebrates (except MY rep and senator, natch). And don't forget the other mandatory cost center--defense or war or whatever-the fuck-else it's called. They'll be getting more too, I hear.
Don't love the spending, but at the bare minimum, the military is an actual government function.
Everything else is not.
You have one job Johnson. Jesus H Science.
Is this true?
"In other words, despite full Republican control of government, the bill does nothing to improve or ensure long-term fiscal responsibility in Washington."
It seems dems need to vote on the bill and they are expecting their bullshit democrat spending programs to be funded despite not having the majority just like the last shutdown.
Fiscal responsibility should be a mandate for all gov in power, balanced budgets just as everyone must have in their personal lives....
Balanced budgets kinda make sense over a business cycle but year-on-year? Nope. Also government accounting doesn't distinguish between current and capital spending, If two neighbours have identical houses and one spends $20,000 on a luxury vacation while the other spends $20,000 on improvements that increase the value of the home by $40,000. from a budget perspective the two are in the same position. From an economics perspective, they're not.
That's only the case if you can sell the house. No one would want to buy the U.S.
proposed anti-fraud reforms
If we remove "posed anti", we get closer to reality.
Congress is not going to cut spending. It's too late to hit the brakes. We are going over the cliff into financial collapse. Stock your bunker or prepare for a painless exit.
There is a third choice; full on berserker - - - -
Cowering in your bunker, or doing "their" job by killing yourself is not an honorable choice. Make them earn it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it require 60 votes in the Senate to pass these bills? That certainly was the case in the recent shutdown, where all the Republicans and a couple of Democrats voted YES to fund the government, but a chaos-loving rump of Democrats blocked the whole process.
If so, it is extremely disingenuous to talk about Republicans "controlling" both Houses, when the Senate is essentially under Democrat control so long as the 60 vote requirement stays in place.
Trumponomics, bash whatever the left does then do even more of it.