Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Hurricane Harvey Relief Comes With an Extra-Large Side of Pork

The recent debt ceiling deal shows the limits of Trump's deal making abilities.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a young girl as First Lady Melania Trump looks on during a visit to refugees from Hurricane Harvey the NRG Stadium September 2, 2017 in Houston, Texas.Andrea Hanks/ZUMA Press/NewscomIt was just a matter of time before our ideologically flexible president started making deals across the aisle. The result is a $15 billion Harvey relief package that includes short-term debt ceiling and government funding increases, along with the promise of a messy end-of-year negotiation process.

President Donald Trump most likely equates making deals with getting things done. But all deals aren't created equal, and for anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility, this deal, which passed the House and the Senate in spite of many disgruntled members, was particularly lousy.

First, considering our $20 trillion debt, the only acceptable deal would have been one that included a long-term extension of the debt ceiling in exchange for placing fiscal constraints on spending growth. Instead, the president's deal extends fiscal uncertainty and debt ceiling drama to December.

The timing is also awful. The need to raise the debt ceiling will coincide once again with the fiscal crunch of budget negotiation. That will inevitably reinforce the belief that Republicans can't govern and will lead to more debt and spending. Many Republicans who want to demand budget caps in exchange for raising the debt ceiling will feel they can't press for them unless they're willing to risk a government shutdown. Others who want a smaller funding bill will go along with more spending to avoid a government default.

That is why Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Freedom Caucus member and former chairman, has already said the caucus will ask party leadership to extract the next debt ceiling debate from the broader budget negotiations. Caucus members will also demand a plan that provides unilateral authority for the debt ceiling to be raised only if Congress sticks to spending caps as a share of gross domestic product that will be reduced over time.

Second, Trump's deal removed any leverage conservative House members might have had to pass a Harvey relief bill that wasn't packed with non-Harvey-related pork. With the exception of $450 billion going to the Small Business Administration, the original House bill had held the line nicely on preventing non-emergency items.

Sadly, the same cannot be said about the Senate amendment that complied with the president's commitment to Dems. That amendment then served as the final legislation's template. On the Harvey side, it included $7.4 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant program—which had been on the president's budget chopping block because its "allocation formula poorly targets funds to the areas of greatest need" and because "many aspects of the program have become outdated."

But because Harvey relief was linked to the continuing resolution, voting for money for Texas also meant, among other things, agreeing to extend the authority for the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, a project begun in 1999 and described by columnist George Will as a "saga of arrogance and celebrity worship." He added, "Sixteen years later, and eight years after the project's 2007 scheduled completion, scores of millions have been squandered, and there is no memorial and no immediate prospect of building one." It also meant a vote to extend the problematic Head Start base grants and allows for an increase in former presidents' pension.

It extended the National Flood Insurance Program until December, too. Simply put, lawmakers were asked to vote for relief funds along with an extension of a program that creates incentives that put people in harm's way. "The program is debt-ridden and dysfunctional," The Heritage Foundation's Diane Katz recently wrote in a study that detailed the NFIP's problems, adding, "A large proportion of the flood-risk maps are obsolete, and thus the premiums charged under the National Flood Insurance Program do not reflect actual risk. Because property owners do not bear the full cost of flood risk, they are more likely to locate in flood-prone areas and less likely to undertake preventive measures. The devastation of natural disasters is worsened as a result."

It's delusional to believe that lawmakers who will have to find ways to pass a budget, increase the debt ceiling and focus on tax reform, among other policy priorities, will have the ability to make the constructive reforms that are so badly needed.

I'll conclude with a warning: As bad as this deal was, I fear there will be even more lousy deals coming. For instance, it's rumored that Trump could make a deal with Dems to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether in exchange for tax reform. Just imagine how that could go wrong.

Photo Credit: Andrea Hanks/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    "the problematic Head Start base grants"

    I'm afraid your use of the word "problematic" is problematic, Veronique.

    I'll just leave this here... {places C-96 on table}

  • tatap||

    I'm making over $12k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,...Go this web and start your work... Good luck.. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  • Dead inside||

    Further proof that those who rise to the national level of politics have been corrupted and compromised in their ascension to the point of blindly kowtowing to their funders and prospective monied interest. There is not nor will there be anyone who is capable of doing what is in the best interest of the nation and her taxpayers.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Even if they were capable, they would not be allowed to do so.

  • Longtobefree||

    "the only acceptable deal would have been one that included a long-term extension of the debt ceiling in exchange for placing fiscal constraints on spending growth."

    Like amnesty for illegals in exchange for border controls, this was done decades ago. And just as promptly ignored.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Holding up the hurricane relief package over the debt ceiling and future promises? That is a battle you are unlikely to win over stuff that the public will perceive as inside baseball issues. I do not disagree with the sentiment but that would tactically unsound.

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    And yet, "A large proportion of the flood-risk maps are obsolete, and thus the premiums charged under the National Flood Insurance Program do not reflect actual risk. Because property owners do not bear the full cost of flood risk, they are more likely to locate in flood-prone areas and less likely to undertake preventive measures. The devastation of natural disasters is worsened as a result."

    Using urgently wanted disaster relief to lessen the impact of future disater relief would have been an excellent deal.

    By all the gods, I hope it does get warmer and NYC and LA are both drowned off the map.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Rising sea levels are a wonderful thing. I only wish we could accelerate them.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    If only there were some element we could release into the atmosphere to accomplish that goal.

  • Smooth_L||

    I think you meant $450 million, not billion, going to the SBA in Paragraph 6. At least I sure hope you did.

  • JFree||

    I fear there will be even more lousy deals coming.

    Well I suppose it's a good thing that we have a lousy dealmaker in office to make those lousy deals

  • Ned Netterville||

    Having given the swamp denizens adequate warning that he was going to "drain the swamp," but taking his good old time before turning on the pumps, the denizens took advantage of his dillydallying (probably while he canvased the size of the female denizens' breasts), the denizens made plans to outwit him (an easy task), and as soon as he brought some of them into his parlor for a chit chat--they eat him. Pelosi the Snake and Schumer the Gator both were heard to burp loudlay as they left the White House guffawing.

  • AngelaM||

    Why would removing a weapon of the Freedom Caucus, (it's threat to shut down the government everytime the debt ceiling comes up) necessarily be a bad thing? They don't seem motivated by any particular small government ideas unless it is doing away with SNAP and reducing funding on whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. They have never real set out a coherent policy unless it is to shrink government until it can be drowned in a bath tub but the latest hurricanes and the contaminated ground water and released cacinogins in the air seems to indicate that the states are not inclined to protect their citizens and will continue to rely on the Federal government to bail them out and then immediately begin complaining about government over-reach. The SBA should be considered part of the relief effort not pork. Many small businesses were all but wiped out in the disasters. They will need government backed loars to help them rebuild. The SBA is as much a part of the relief effort as FEMA.

  • p3orion||

    In other words, Mr. "Art of the Deal" got rolled.

  • blondrealist||

    Here's an excerpt from Cullen Roche that Veronique should read: "Getting rid of the debt ceiling is a good idea. Every 6 months or so we run into this silly self imposed limit, nearly default and then raise the limit some more so we can go through the same charade later. It makes no sense. And no, I am not saying that Congress should have an unconstrained limit to its spending, but this is not the way this should be done. We should be appropriating funds through Congress BEFORE we decide we do or do not want to finance that spending. If Congress wants to limit spending then stop appropriating the funds before they need to be financed. This is basic financial management. Congress needs to stop acting like they care about the national debt when their spending clearly shows that they don't. This charade, which occurs after the fact, is just a political show and it should stop."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online