Bills

Bill Summary: This was the second installment in federal disaster aid to address the impact of recent natural disasters (see House Roll Call 480, 9-8-17, re the first installment.) 

H.R. 2266, as co-opted here and amended, appropriates an additional $36.5 billion for federal disaster aid, over and above the regular budget (supplemental appropriations). That total includes $18.67 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund, $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, $1.27 billion in supplemental nutrition assistance money for Puerto Rican residents and $576.5 million in wildfire suppression.

(The measure also included the original, relatively minor measure by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI-13) to increase bankruptcy judges.)

Analysis: Certainly no one disputes the enormous devastation created by the recent hurricanes and wildfires. And since the federal government has encouraged the states to view the federal government has having deep pockets and the go-to source for aid in disasters, it is not surprising that Congress has responded with this measure.

That said, there are three serious problems with the action. First, federal disaster aid is still unconstitutional, as President Grover Cleveland explained when vetoing the Texas Seed Bill (see our analysis of the recent first installment of such aid — House Roll Call 480, 9-8-17).   Unfortunately, there is hardly a voice in Congress campaigning to restore the Federal government to its constitutional limits.

Nevertheless, that campaign must be fought if our nation is to survive as a free and independent Republic. Unfortunately, the backbone for such action must come from an informed electorate. (Building that informed electorate is part of the mission of Freedom First Society and a key purpose for this no-nonsense scorecard.)

Second, these appropriations violate the rules Congress had previously established with the Budget Control Act of 2011, as subsequently modified. Those budget sequester rules capped the rate of growth of both defense and non-defense spending.   To get past those caps, the spending was termed “emergency,” even though non-emergency spending, e.g., the $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, was included.

Third, there was no excuse for treating this aid as supplemental appropriations that will not somehow have a serious impact on the federal budget and the national debt. There are plenty of opportunities for cutting back federal spending elsewhere to make room for this disaster aid. There is just insufficient will in Congress to do so. And so, Congress decided to “borrow” the money through the Federal Reserve, which will “monetize” the debt (create new money out of thin air.)

During the subsequent Senate “debate” of the measure, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) provided an excellent summary of the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and this measure in particular. (Note, however, that Senator Paul failed to make the argument that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. For the future of our nation, Congress must be forced to respect the Constitution, not merely spend up to what the federal government receives in taxes.)

From the Congressional Record (10-24-17):

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Emphasis is added):

“Mr. President, we currently have a $20 trillion debt.   Now, we might ask ourselves, whose fault is it, Republicans or Democrats? The easy answer is both. Both parties are equally responsible, equally culpable, and equally guilty of ignoring the debt, ignoring the spending problem, and really I think allowing our country to rot from the inside out.   This year, the deficit will be $700 billion, for just 1 year for our country, $700 billion. We borrow about $1 million a minute. Under George W. Bush, the debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is doubling under Republicans and Democrats.

“Right now, we are in the midst of another spending frenzy. People will say: Well, we are spending the money for something good. We are going to help those in Puerto Rico, in Texas, and in Florida. My point is, if we are going to spend money to help someone in need, maybe we should take it from another area of spending that is less in need. I think that just simply borrowing it — even for something you can argue is compassionate — is really foolhardy and may make us weaker as a nation.

“Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said: The No. 1 threat to our national security is our debt. In fact, most people who follow world politics — while we do have problems around the world — don’t really see us being invaded anytime soon by an army or an armada, but people do see the burden of debt.

“So what we have before us is a bill, $36 billion, much of it going to Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida. My request is very simple: We should pay for it.   About 1 month ago, we had $15 billion for the same purposes. We are set, in all likelihood, to have over $100 billion spent on these hurricanes. I simply ask that we take it from some spending item that seems to be less pressing. We could go through a list of hundreds and hundreds of items….

“I think we ought to think twice about sending money to countries that burn our flag, sending money to countries that persecute Christians, sending money to countries that, frankly, don’t even like us.   We spend about $30 billion helping other countries. If you were going to help your neighbor, if your neighbor was without food, would you first feed your children, and if you have a little money left over, help the children next door? That is what most people would do.

“If you are going to give money to your church or synagogue, would you go to the bank and borrow the money to give to somebody? Would that be compassionate or foolhardy? Is it compassionate to borrow money to give it to someone else?

“People here will say they have great compassion, and they want to help the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Texas and the people of Florida, but notice they have great compassion with someone else’s money. Ask them if they are giving any money to Puerto Rico. Ask them if they are giving money to Texas. Ask them what they are doing to help their fellow man. You will find often it is easy to be compassionate with somebody else’s money, but it is not only that. It is not only compassion with someone else’s money, it is compassion with money that doesn’t even exist, money that is borrowed….

“They are giving money they borrowed.   So what am I asking? Not that we not do this. What I am asking is: Why don’t we take it from something we shouldn’t be doing or why don’t we try to conserve? So if you decided you want to help the people next door, you might say: I am not going to the movie theater. I am not going to go to the Broadway play. I am not going to the NFL game. I am going to save money by cutting back on my expenses so I can help the people next door who are struggling, the father and mother out of work, and they need my help — but you wouldn’t go to the bank and ask for a loan to help people.

“That is not the way it works, unless you are a government. Then common sense goes out the window, and you just spend money right and left because you are compassionate, you have a big heart, because you have the ability of the Federal Reserve just to print out more money.

“There are ultimately ramifications to profligate spending. We are approaching that day. Some say you get there when your debt is at 100 percent of your GDP. We have now surpassed that. We have about a $17 trillion, $18 trillion economy, and we have a $20 trillion debt. Is it getting any better? Have we planned on fixing it at all? No, there is no fixing.

“Is one party better than the other? No, they are equally bad. They are terrible. One side is at least honest. They don’t care about the debt. The other side is just hypocrites because they say: We are going to win the election by saying we are conservative, we care about the debt, but they don’t. The debt gets worse under both parties….

“When I first came up here, I was elected in this tea party tidal wave that was concerned about debt. Something called a sequester was passed. Guess who hated it. All the big-spending Republicans and all the big-spending Democrats. They couldn’t pass out their goodies and favors enough because there was some restraint.   You say: Well, I heard the sequester was terrible. I saw people at school and I saw people in my town saying that the sequester wasn’t giving them enough money.   The sequester was actually a slowdown in the rate of growth of spending….

“So we had a sequester, and it was evenly divided between military and nonmilitary, between Republican interests and Democratic interests. It did not cut; it slowed down the rate of growth of spending over 10 years. It was actually working to a certain degree….

“Who destroyed the sequester? Really, the voices were louder on the Republican side than the Democratic side, but both parties were complicit. The sequester has essentially been gutted and destroyed, and the spending caps have become somewhat meaningless.   We have before us today $36 billion. It will exceed the spending caps. We have a sequester in place, but there are all these exemptions, so it is exempt. Anytime you say it is an emergency, it is an exemption. Within the $36 billion, though, there is $16 billion because we run a terrible government-run flood program that is $16 billion in the hole. So we are going to bail it out by letting it wipe out all of its debt. That sounds like long-term mismanagement in a badly run program rather than an emergency. Yet it is going to be stuck in an emergency bill so it can exceed the caps.  

“What am I asking for today? I am asking that we obey our own rules. We set these rules. We set these spending caps. We set the sequester. Let’s obey them. The other side will say: Oh, we are obeying the rules; we are just not counting this money. That is the problem. We have this dishonest accounting where people say: Oh yeah, we are obeying the rules. But we are not….

“A lot of this money is actually done as an off-budget thing. It is called the overseas contingency operations. It is really a way of cheating, a way of being dishonest in your accounting. It is a way of evading spending caps, but it has also gone a long way toward making it easier to keep spending money without restraint. We tried to put restraints on military and nonmilitary, and they were exceeded by this slush fund. They call it OCO funding, or overseas contingency operations.”

Freedom First Society: Senator Paul’s assessment that Congress doesn’t obey its own rules illustrates why the GOP demand for a Balanced Budget amendment is a deceptive if not dangerous excuse for continued fiscal irresponsibility. Rules do little good if they are not enforced and obeyed.

Since most federal spending is a violation of the Constitution, the federal monster exists and prospers because Congress regularly ignores those rules. Instead of passing new rules to be ignored, Congress must be forced to obey the existing rules — the current Constitution — by an informed electorate back home.

With disaster aid, Congress loves to posture as compassionate with someone else’s money. However, as Senator Paul explained above, the money to be spent here would actually be created through the Federal Reserve System. Fabian Socialist economist John Maynard Keynes understood how this process worked. In his 1920 Economic Consequences of Peace, he wrote:

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”

The Fed’s authority to inflate the money supply (create new money out of thin air, diluting the value of existing money), has allowed the enormous growth of the federal monster. As the federal monster grew, gobbling up financial resources and offering easy money, the independent ability of the states to fund projects or even provide state aid decreased as they became increasingly dependent on Washington.

The House Has Its Big-Spenders

The spending-without-restraint mentality was apparent in several of the House speeches during the debate. We saw there a vision of the federal government as a provider for the needs of the people — a vision far different from that of the Founding Fathers. (Supported by their vision of limited government, a free and unhampered people would launch America on a path to unprecedented prosperity.) We provide here several examples.

From the Congressional Record (10-12-17) (Emphasis added):

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11):

“However, with such massive, unprecedented damage, more help is clearly needed to continue to respond to these recovery efforts, to rebuild communities with dollars, with resources, with manpower, and with our support.   This emergency funding legislation, the second installment, addresses urgent short-term immediate priorities: replenishing FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, supporting ongoing Federal wildfire suppression efforts, providing debt relief for the Federal Flood Insurance Program, and other assistance that will help our fellow Americans in their time of greatest need….

“This package also includes $4.9 billion for community disaster loans, which will ensure local governments are able to provide basic municipal services such as police and fire protection and public education throughout this trying time.”

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-42):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriations bill…. In fiscal year 2017, the Forest Service had a shortfall of nearly $577 million in firefighting funds. To cover its immediate firefighting costs, the Forest Service borrowed from its non-fire programs, as well as the Department of the Interior.   The bill will replace and repay those borrowed funds and close the books on fiscal year 2017.”

Rep. Lucile Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40):

“Mr. Speaker, the past few months have witnessed one of the most devastating natural disasters ever endured by our country. They include hurricanes, voracious wildfires in my home State of California that have killed at least 23 people, required mass evacuations, and burned more than 170,000 acres and thousands of homes and businesses.   By acting quickly on this emergency supplemental, we are sending a strong message that we are here for disaster victims, including our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. But this is just a down-payment. We still don’t have the final damage estimates for many of the affected areas. “

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN-04):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this funding package. This bill is a down-payment on the recovery from the recent fires and hurricanes.   I am pleased that it contains $576.5 million to fully repay the funds that the U.S. Forest Service borrowed last fiscal year to pay for wildfire suppression.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23):

“While I rise to support this critical emergency appropriations bill, this supplemental leaves much to be desired. This legislation provides vital recovery funds to my home State of Florida, as well as Texas; the U.S. Virgin Islands; Puerto Rico; and California, where wildfires remain ablaze. However, it neglects to include SBA loans for small businesses and homeowners, as well as making smart investments in our ports, coastlines, water systems, and electrical grids.   This bill also neglects to address the devastating agricultural losses, especially to Florida’s $10 billion citrus industry. It is also important to note that, in Florida, this vital funding will not be able to address the public health hazard of debris strewn across our lawns and streets as Governor Scott shamefully refuses to allow our cities to fully access FEMA funds.   While the majority has said these and other issues can be part of future omnibus negotiations, this delay will leave constituents waiting months longer to receive the services they so desperately need. They should not have to wait.”

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-07):

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, [Mr. Rodney Frelinghuysen] and the ranking member from New York [Rep. Nita Lowey] for their work…. The legislation we are debating today is far from sufficient. It is not enough, but it is a start. It is a down-payment in helping the response process…..

“Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. There is going to need to be much more assistance in the future. Puerto Rico will need help rebuilding its energy grid, repairing telecommunications networks, and putting its ports, bridges, and roads back together, and we cannot forget shoring up the island’s Medicaid system, something that was critical before Maria, but is even more important now.   This problem is of Congress’ making, and we must fix it. Make no mistake. Those priorities will require more money, and we will need to come back and address them in a few weeks.   The people of Puerto Rico are American citizens…. Yes, American citizens, when, in 1898, Puerto Rico was invaded and taken over by the U.S. Government. So now it is our responsibility to make Puerto Rico whole.”

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL-25):

“Specifically, we are going to have to deal with the agricultural impact of this storm, and again, particularly on the citrus industry, that has been devastated by this storm.”

Non-Voting Member Stacey Plaskett (Virgin Islands):

“I am pleased to see much-needed support for ongoing disaster response efforts in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and other hurricane- affected areas, including direct assistance to families, debris removal operations, and emergency protective measures carried out by FEMA, and additional activities of numerous other Federal agencies that are on the ground working around the clock to help us to recover and rebuild. I cannot thank enough all of our Federal and local personnel helping us through this.

“However, I am deeply concerned about the important relief that was left out of this bill and the administration’s disaster relief request last week….

“The package does not include community development and social service block grant funding, Economic Development Administration funds, supplemental housing assistance, nor additional funds for repair of our water infrastructure, ports, community facilities, airports, roads, parks, wetlands, and fisheries.   Damage sustained in all of these areas has been catastrophic, and waiting around until another end of the year for auxiliary funding for these pressing needs is not acceptable.   Perhaps most concerning is the lack of Medicaid program assistance to the territory. Even before two consecutive Category 5 hurricanes that decimated our hospitals and medical infrastructure, the Virgin Islands was forced to operate a Medicaid program that is capped in an amount that has no relationship to local needs, and our rate of Federal matching funds, our FMAP, is limited to an arbitrarily low 55 percent Federal to 45 percent local contribution.

“Thousands of our citizens go without adequate care due to this treatment every year, in addition to the impacts on our providers and hospitals due to uncompensated care, but after these back-to-back storms, there is no revenue being generated in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico at this time.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA-43):

“This bill also provides for partial debt forgiveness of $16 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program….   Following the losses that will be incurred as a result of the recent hurricanes, the NFIP needs debt forgiveness more than ever. But let’s be clear. The partial debt forgiveness will leave the NFIP with a crushing level of debt. Although this is a step in the right direction, we should forgive all of the debt that the NFIP has accrued from catastrophic storms like Katrina and Sandy instead of burdening the NFIP policyholders with hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payments every year.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA-13):

“Mr. Speaker, the supplemental is a good first step. It is a good first step in a very long process, but we must provide more long-term assistance to help communities rebuild and to help them recover very quickly, and we must leave no one behind.”

 

Bill Summary: This was the second installment in federal disaster aid to address the impact of recent natural disasters (see House Roll Call 480, 9-8-17, re the first installment.) 

H.R. 2266, as co-opted here and amended, appropriates an additional $36.5 billion for federal disaster aid, over and above the regular budget (supplemental appropriations). That total includes $18.67 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund, $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, $1.27 billion in supplemental nutrition assistance money for Puerto Rican residents and $576.5 million in wildfire suppression.

(The measure also included the original, relatively minor measure by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI-13) to increase bankruptcy judges.)

Analysis: Certainly no one disputes the enormous devastation created by the recent hurricanes and wildfires. And since the federal government has encouraged the states to view the federal government has having deep pockets and the go-to source for aid in disasters, it is not surprising that Congress has responded with this measure.

That said, there are three serious problems with the action. First, federal disaster aid is still unconstitutional, as President Grover Cleveland explained when vetoing the Texas Seed Bill (see our analysis of the recent first installment of such aid — House Roll Call 480, 9-8-17).   Unfortunately, there is hardly a voice in Congress campaigning to restore the Federal government to its constitutional limits.

Nevertheless, that campaign must be fought if our nation is to survive as a free and independent Republic. Unfortunately, the backbone for such action must come from an informed electorate. (Building that informed electorate is part of the mission of Freedom First Society and a key purpose for this no-nonsense scorecard.)

Second, these appropriations violate the rules Congress had previously established with the Budget Control Act of 2011, as subsequently modified. Those budget sequester rules capped the rate of growth of both defense and non-defense spending.   To get past those caps, the spending was termed “emergency,” even though non-emergency spending, e.g., the $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, was included.

Third, there was no excuse for treating this aid as supplemental appropriations that will not somehow have a serious impact on the federal budget and the national debt. There are plenty of opportunities for cutting back federal spending elsewhere to make room for this disaster aid. There is just insufficient will in Congress to do so. And so, Congress decided to “borrow” the money through the Federal Reserve, which will “monetize” the debt (create new money out of thin air.)

During the subsequent Senate “debate” of the measure, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) provided an excellent summary of the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and this measure in particular. (Note, however, that Senator Paul failed to make the argument that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. For the future of our nation, Congress must be forced to respect the Constitution, not merely spend up to what the federal government receives in taxes.)

From the Congressional Record (10-24-17):

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Emphasis is added):

“Mr. President, we currently have a $20 trillion debt.   Now, we might ask ourselves, whose fault is it, Republicans or Democrats? The easy answer is both. Both parties are equally responsible, equally culpable, and equally guilty of ignoring the debt, ignoring the spending problem, and really I think allowing our country to rot from the inside out.   This year, the deficit will be $700 billion, for just 1 year for our country, $700 billion. We borrow about $1 million a minute. Under George W. Bush, the debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is doubling under Republicans and Democrats.

“Right now, we are in the midst of another spending frenzy. People will say: Well, we are spending the money for something good. We are going to help those in Puerto Rico, in Texas, and in Florida. My point is, if we are going to spend money to help someone in need, maybe we should take it from another area of spending that is less in need. I think that just simply borrowing it — even for something you can argue is compassionate — is really foolhardy and may make us weaker as a nation.

“Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said: The No. 1 threat to our national security is our debt. In fact, most people who follow world politics — while we do have problems around the world — don’t really see us being invaded anytime soon by an army or an armada, but people do see the burden of debt.

“So what we have before us is a bill, $36 billion, much of it going to Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida. My request is very simple: We should pay for it.   About 1 month ago, we had $15 billion for the same purposes. We are set, in all likelihood, to have over $100 billion spent on these hurricanes. I simply ask that we take it from some spending item that seems to be less pressing. We could go through a list of hundreds and hundreds of items….

“I think we ought to think twice about sending money to countries that burn our flag, sending money to countries that persecute Christians, sending money to countries that, frankly, don’t even like us.   We spend about $30 billion helping other countries. If you were going to help your neighbor, if your neighbor was without food, would you first feed your children, and if you have a little money left over, help the children next door? That is what most people would do.

“If you are going to give money to your church or synagogue, would you go to the bank and borrow the money to give to somebody? Would that be compassionate or foolhardy? Is it compassionate to borrow money to give it to someone else?

“People here will say they have great compassion, and they want to help the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Texas and the people of Florida, but notice they have great compassion with someone else’s money. Ask them if they are giving any money to Puerto Rico. Ask them if they are giving money to Texas. Ask them what they are doing to help their fellow man. You will find often it is easy to be compassionate with somebody else’s money, but it is not only that. It is not only compassion with someone else’s money, it is compassion with money that doesn’t even exist, money that is borrowed….

“They are giving money they borrowed.   So what am I asking? Not that we not do this. What I am asking is: Why don’t we take it from something we shouldn’t be doing or why don’t we try to conserve? So if you decided you want to help the people next door, you might say: I am not going to the movie theater. I am not going to go to the Broadway play. I am not going to the NFL game. I am going to save money by cutting back on my expenses so I can help the people next door who are struggling, the father and mother out of work, and they need my help — but you wouldn’t go to the bank and ask for a loan to help people.

“That is not the way it works, unless you are a government. Then common sense goes out the window, and you just spend money right and left because you are compassionate, you have a big heart, because you have the ability of the Federal Reserve just to print out more money.

“There are ultimately ramifications to profligate spending. We are approaching that day. Some say you get there when your debt is at 100 percent of your GDP. We have now surpassed that. We have about a $17 trillion, $18 trillion economy, and we have a $20 trillion debt. Is it getting any better? Have we planned on fixing it at all? No, there is no fixing.

“Is one party better than the other? No, they are equally bad. They are terrible. One side is at least honest. They don’t care about the debt. The other side is just hypocrites because they say: We are going to win the election by saying we are conservative, we care about the debt, but they don’t. The debt gets worse under both parties….

“When I first came up here, I was elected in this tea party tidal wave that was concerned about debt. Something called a sequester was passed. Guess who hated it. All the big-spending Republicans and all the big-spending Democrats. They couldn’t pass out their goodies and favors enough because there was some restraint.   You say: Well, I heard the sequester was terrible. I saw people at school and I saw people in my town saying that the sequester wasn’t giving them enough money.   The sequester was actually a slowdown in the rate of growth of spending….

“So we had a sequester, and it was evenly divided between military and nonmilitary, between Republican interests and Democratic interests. It did not cut; it slowed down the rate of growth of spending over 10 years. It was actually working to a certain degree….

“Who destroyed the sequester? Really, the voices were louder on the Republican side than the Democratic side, but both parties were complicit. The sequester has essentially been gutted and destroyed, and the spending caps have become somewhat meaningless.   We have before us today $36 billion. It will exceed the spending caps. We have a sequester in place, but there are all these exemptions, so it is exempt. Anytime you say it is an emergency, it is an exemption. Within the $36 billion, though, there is $16 billion because we run a terrible government-run flood program that is $16 billion in the hole. So we are going to bail it out by letting it wipe out all of its debt. That sounds like long-term mismanagement in a badly run program rather than an emergency. Yet it is going to be stuck in an emergency bill so it can exceed the caps.  

“What am I asking for today? I am asking that we obey our own rules. We set these rules. We set these spending caps. We set the sequester. Let’s obey them. The other side will say: Oh, we are obeying the rules; we are just not counting this money. That is the problem. We have this dishonest accounting where people say: Oh yeah, we are obeying the rules. But we are not….

“A lot of this money is actually done as an off-budget thing. It is called the overseas contingency operations. It is really a way of cheating, a way of being dishonest in your accounting. It is a way of evading spending caps, but it has also gone a long way toward making it easier to keep spending money without restraint. We tried to put restraints on military and nonmilitary, and they were exceeded by this slush fund. They call it OCO funding, or overseas contingency operations.”

Freedom First Society: Senator Paul’s assessment that Congress doesn’t obey its own rules illustrates why the GOP demand for a Balanced Budget amendment is a deceptive if not dangerous excuse for continued fiscal irresponsibility. Rules do little good if they are not enforced and obeyed.

Since most federal spending is a violation of the Constitution, the federal monster exists and prospers because Congress regularly ignores those rules. Instead of passing new rules to be ignored, Congress must be forced to obey the existing rules — the current Constitution — by an informed electorate back home.

With disaster aid, Congress loves to posture as compassionate with someone else’s money. However, as Senator Paul explained above, the money to be spent here would actually be created through the Federal Reserve System. Fabian Socialist economist John Maynard Keynes understood how this process worked. In his 1920 Economic Consequences of Peace, he wrote:

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”

The Fed’s authority to inflate the money supply (create new money out of thin air, diluting the value of existing money), has allowed the enormous growth of the federal monster. As the federal monster grew, gobbling up financial resources and offering easy money, the independent ability of the states to fund projects or even provide state aid decreased as they became increasingly dependent on Washington.

The House Has Its Big-Spenders

The spending-without-restraint mentality was apparent in several of the House speeches during the debate. We saw there a vision of the federal government as a provider for the needs of the people — a vision far different from that of the Founding Fathers. (Supported by their vision of limited government, a free and unhampered people would launch America on a path to unprecedented prosperity.) We provide here several examples.

From the Congressional Record (10-12-17) (Emphasis added):

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11):

“However, with such massive, unprecedented damage, more help is clearly needed to continue to respond to these recovery efforts, to rebuild communities with dollars, with resources, with manpower, and with our support.   This emergency funding legislation, the second installment, addresses urgent short-term immediate priorities: replenishing FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, supporting ongoing Federal wildfire suppression efforts, providing debt relief for the Federal Flood Insurance Program, and other assistance that will help our fellow Americans in their time of greatest need….

“This package also includes $4.9 billion for community disaster loans, which will ensure local governments are able to provide basic municipal services such as police and fire protection and public education throughout this trying time.”

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-42):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriations bill…. In fiscal year 2017, the Forest Service had a shortfall of nearly $577 million in firefighting funds. To cover its immediate firefighting costs, the Forest Service borrowed from its non-fire programs, as well as the Department of the Interior.   The bill will replace and repay those borrowed funds and close the books on fiscal year 2017.”

Rep. Lucile Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40):

“Mr. Speaker, the past few months have witnessed one of the most devastating natural disasters ever endured by our country. They include hurricanes, voracious wildfires in my home State of California that have killed at least 23 people, required mass evacuations, and burned more than 170,000 acres and thousands of homes and businesses.   By acting quickly on this emergency supplemental, we are sending a strong message that we are here for disaster victims, including our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. But this is just a down-payment. We still don’t have the final damage estimates for many of the affected areas. “

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN-04):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this funding package. This bill is a down-payment on the recovery from the recent fires and hurricanes.   I am pleased that it contains $576.5 million to fully repay the funds that the U.S. Forest Service borrowed last fiscal year to pay for wildfire suppression.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23):

“While I rise to support this critical emergency appropriations bill, this supplemental leaves much to be desired. This legislation provides vital recovery funds to my home State of Florida, as well as Texas; the U.S. Virgin Islands; Puerto Rico; and California, where wildfires remain ablaze. However, it neglects to include SBA loans for small businesses and homeowners, as well as making smart investments in our ports, coastlines, water systems, and electrical grids.   This bill also neglects to address the devastating agricultural losses, especially to Florida’s $10 billion citrus industry. It is also important to note that, in Florida, this vital funding will not be able to address the public health hazard of debris strewn across our lawns and streets as Governor Scott shamefully refuses to allow our cities to fully access FEMA funds.   While the majority has said these and other issues can be part of future omnibus negotiations, this delay will leave constituents waiting months longer to receive the services they so desperately need. They should not have to wait.”

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-07):

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, [Mr. Rodney Frelinghuysen] and the ranking member from New York [Rep. Nita Lowey] for their work…. The legislation we are debating today is far from sufficient. It is not enough, but it is a start. It is a down-payment in helping the response process…..

“Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. There is going to need to be much more assistance in the future. Puerto Rico will need help rebuilding its energy grid, repairing telecommunications networks, and putting its ports, bridges, and roads back together, and we cannot forget shoring up the island’s Medicaid system, something that was critical before Maria, but is even more important now.   This problem is of Congress’ making, and we must fix it. Make no mistake. Those priorities will require more money, and we will need to come back and address them in a few weeks.   The people of Puerto Rico are American citizens…. Yes, American citizens, when, in 1898, Puerto Rico was invaded and taken over by the U.S. Government. So now it is our responsibility to make Puerto Rico whole.”

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL-25):

“Specifically, we are going to have to deal with the agricultural impact of this storm, and again, particularly on the citrus industry, that has been devastated by this storm.”

Non-Voting Member Stacey Plaskett (Virgin Islands):

“I am pleased to see much-needed support for ongoing disaster response efforts in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and other hurricane- affected areas, including direct assistance to families, debris removal operations, and emergency protective measures carried out by FEMA, and additional activities of numerous other Federal agencies that are on the ground working around the clock to help us to recover and rebuild. I cannot thank enough all of our Federal and local personnel helping us through this.

“However, I am deeply concerned about the important relief that was left out of this bill and the administration’s disaster relief request last week….

“The package does not include community development and social service block grant funding, Economic Development Administration funds, supplemental housing assistance, nor additional funds for repair of our water infrastructure, ports, community facilities, airports, roads, parks, wetlands, and fisheries.   Damage sustained in all of these areas has been catastrophic, and waiting around until another end of the year for auxiliary funding for these pressing needs is not acceptable.   Perhaps most concerning is the lack of Medicaid program assistance to the territory. Even before two consecutive Category 5 hurricanes that decimated our hospitals and medical infrastructure, the Virgin Islands was forced to operate a Medicaid program that is capped in an amount that has no relationship to local needs, and our rate of Federal matching funds, our FMAP, is limited to an arbitrarily low 55 percent Federal to 45 percent local contribution.

“Thousands of our citizens go without adequate care due to this treatment every year, in addition to the impacts on our providers and hospitals due to uncompensated care, but after these back-to-back storms, there is no revenue being generated in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico at this time.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA-43):

“This bill also provides for partial debt forgiveness of $16 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program….   Following the losses that will be incurred as a result of the recent hurricanes, the NFIP needs debt forgiveness more than ever. But let’s be clear. The partial debt forgiveness will leave the NFIP with a crushing level of debt. Although this is a step in the right direction, we should forgive all of the debt that the NFIP has accrued from catastrophic storms like Katrina and Sandy instead of burdening the NFIP policyholders with hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payments every year.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA-13):

“Mr. Speaker, the supplemental is a good first step. It is a good first step in a very long process, but we must provide more long-term assistance to help communities rebuild and to help them recover very quickly, and we must leave no one behind.”

 

Bill Summary: H.R. 2266, as co-opted and amended in the House, appropriates an additional $36.5 billion for federal disaster aid, over and above the regular budget (supplemental appropriations). That total includes $18.67 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund, $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, $1.27 billion in supplemental nutrition assistance money for Puerto Rican residents and $576.5 million in wildfire suppression.The measure also included the original, relatively minor measure by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI-13) to increase bankruptcy judges.

Analysis: This was the second installment in federal disaster aid to address the impact of recent natural disasters (the Senate approved the first $15.25 billion installment on 9-7-17, Senate Vote 192). Here, the House leadership used the political popularity of such aid to push thru additional non-emergency spending, such as $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program.

Aside from the fact that federal disaster aid is unconstitutional (see our analysis of Senate Vote 192), this measure made no effort to scale back less urgent or even reckless spending in other areas to address the recent natural disasters. The measure’s fiscal irresponsibility can be seen in the fact that no Democrat opposed the measure in either the House or the Senate.

In an immediately prior vote (Senate Vote 247), the Senate waived all budgetary discipline regarding the spending in H.R. 2266.

During the October 24th Senate “debate” on the measure, Senator Rand Paul was allowed time to register his opposition (contrary to normal procedure when the leadership of both parties are in agreement).   His assessment of the lack of spending restraint in Washington deserves serious attention. (Note, however, that Senator Paul failed to make the argument that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. For the future of our nation, Congress must be forced to respect the Constitution, not merely spend up to what the federal government receives in taxes.)

From the Congressional Record (10-24-17):

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Emphasis is added):

“Mr. President, we currently have a $20 trillion debt.   Now, we might ask ourselves, whose fault is it, Republicans or Democrats? The easy answer is both. Both parties are equally responsible, equally culpable, and equally guilty of ignoring the debt, ignoring the spending problem, and really I think allowing our country to rot from the inside out.   This year, the deficit will be $700 billion, for just 1 year for our country, $700 billion. We borrow about $1 million a minute. Under George W. Bush, the debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is doubling under Republicans and Democrats.

“Right now, we are in the midst of another spending frenzy. People will say: Well, we are spending the money for something good. We are going to help those in Puerto Rico, in Texas, and in Florida. My point is, if we are going to spend money to help someone in need, maybe we should take it from another area of spending that is less in need. I think that just simply borrowing it — even for something you can argue is compassionate — is really foolhardy and may make us weaker as a nation.

“Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said: The No. 1 threat to our national security is our debt. In fact, most people who follow world politics — while we do have problems around the world — don’t really see us being invaded anytime soon by an army or an armada, but people do see the burden of debt.

“So what we have before us is a bill, $36 billion, much of it going to Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida. My request is very simple: We should pay for it.   About 1 month ago, we had $15 billion for the same purposes. We are set, in all likelihood, to have over $100 billion spent on these hurricanes. I simply ask that we take it from some spending item that seems to be less pressing. We could go through a list of hundreds and hundreds of items….

“I think we ought to think twice about sending money to countries that burn our flag, sending money to countries that persecute Christians, sending money to countries that, frankly, don’t even like us.   We spend about $30 billion helping other countries. If you were going to help your neighbor, if your neighbor was without food, would you first feed your children, and if you have a little money left over, help the children next door? That is what most people would do.

“If you are going to give money to your church or synagogue, would you go to the bank and borrow the money to give to somebody? Would that be compassionate or foolhardy? Is it compassionate to borrow money to give it to someone else?

“People here will say they have great compassion, and they want to help the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Texas and the people of Florida, but notice they have great compassion with someone else’s money. Ask them if they are giving any money to Puerto Rico. Ask them if they are giving money to Texas. Ask them what they are doing to help their fellow man. You will find often it is easy to be compassionate with somebody else’s money, but it is not only that. It is not only compassion with someone else’s money, it is compassion with money that doesn’t even exist, money that is borrowed….

“They are giving money they borrowed.   So what am I asking? Not that we not do this. What I am asking is: Why don’t we take it from something we shouldn’t be doing or why don’t we try to conserve? So if you decided you want to help the people next door, you might say: I am not going to the movie theater. I am not going to go to the Broadway play. I am not going to the NFL game. I am going to save money by cutting back on my expenses so I can help the people next door who are struggling, the father and mother out of work, and they need my help — but you wouldn’t go to the bank and ask for a loan to help people.

“That is not the way it works, unless you are a government. Then common sense goes out the window, and you just spend money right and left because you are compassionate, you have a big heart, because you have the ability of the Federal Reserve just to print out more money.

“There are ultimately ramifications to profligate spending. We are approaching that day. Some say you get there when your debt is at 100 percent of your GDP. We have now surpassed that. We have about a $17 trillion, $18 trillion economy, and we have a $20 trillion debt. Is it getting any better? Have we planned on fixing it at all? No, there is no fixing.

“Is one party better than the other? No, they are equally bad. They are terrible. One side is at least honest. They don’t care about the debt. The other side is just hypocrites because they say: We are going to win the election by saying we are conservative, we care about the debt, but they don’t. The debt gets worse under both parties….

“When I first came up here, I was elected in this tea party tidal wave that was concerned about debt. Something called a sequester was passed. Guess who hated it. All the big-spending Republicans and all the big-spending Democrats. They couldn’t pass out their goodies and favors enough because there was some restraint.   You say: Well, I heard the sequester was terrible. I saw people at school and I saw people in my town saying that the sequester wasn’t giving them enough money.   The sequester was actually a slowdown in the rate of growth of spending….

“So we had a sequester, and it was evenly divided between military and nonmilitary, between Republican interests and Democratic interests. It did not cut; it slowed down the rate of growth of spending over 10 years. It was actually working to a certain degree….

“Who destroyed the sequester? Really, the voices were louder on the Republican side than the Democratic side, but both parties were complicit. The sequester has essentially been gutted and destroyed, and the spending caps have become somewhat meaningless.   We have before us today $36 billion. It will exceed the spending caps. We have a sequester in place, but there are all these exemptions, so it is exempt. Anytime you say it is an emergency, it is an exemption. Within the $36 billion, though, there is $16 billion because we run a terrible government-run flood program that is $16 billion in the hole. So we are going to bail it out by letting it wipe out all of its debt. That sounds like long-term mismanagement in a badly run program rather than an emergency. Yet it is going to be stuck in an emergency bill so it can exceed the caps.  

“What am I asking for today? I am asking that we obey our own rules. We set these rules. We set these spending caps. We set the sequester. Let’s obey them. The other side will say: Oh, we are obeying the rules; we are just not counting this money. That is the problem. We have this dishonest accounting where people say: Oh yeah, we are obeying the rules. But we are not….

“A lot of this money is actually done as an off-budget thing. It is called the overseas contingency operations. It is really a way of cheating, a way of being dishonest in your accounting. It is a way of evading spending caps, but it has also gone a long way toward making it easier to keep spending money without restraint. We tried to put restraints on military and nonmilitary, and they were exceeded by this slush fund. They call it OCO funding, or overseas contingency operations.”

Freedom First Society:  Senator Paul’s assessment that Congress doesn’t obey its own rules illustrates why the GOP demand for a Balanced Budget amendment is a deceptive if not dangerous excuse for continued fiscal irresponsibility. Rules do little good if they are not enforced and obeyed.

Since most federal spending is a violation of the Constitution, the federal monster exists and prospers because Congress regularly ignores those rules. Instead of passing new rules to be ignored, Congress must be forced to obey the existing rules — the current Constitution — by an informed electorate back home. Building that informed electorate is part of the mission of Freedom First Society and a key purpose for this no-nonsense scorecard.

The Big-Spenders

During the “debate,” several senators were eager to take credit for responding to the disasters by spending someone else’s money. Even worse, as Senator Paul explained above, the money to be spent would be created through the Federal Reserve System. Fabian Socialist economist John Maynard Keynes understood how this process worked. In his 1920 Economic Consequences of Peace, he wrote:

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”

The Fed’s ability to inflate the money supply (create new money out of thin air, diluting the value of existing money), has allowed the enormous growth of the federal monster. As the federal monster grew, gobbling up financial resources and offering easy money, the independent ability of the states to fund projects or even provide state aid decreased as they became increasingly dependent on Washington.

In reading the Senate debate, we were reminded of the comment Harry Hopkins made to a friend during an outing at a New York race track. Hopkins, assistant to President Franklin Roosevelt, said that the strategy of the Roosevelt administration was to “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.”

The arguments of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), leading the Democratic side of the debate, illustrate the mentality that federal money grows on trees and that politicians are “working hard,” “helping,” and contributing by spending it.

From the Congressional Record (10-23-17):

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (Emphasis added):

“Six years ago, I remember, in Vermont, Marcelle and I watched as communities around Vermont felt the devastating impact of Tropical Storm Irene…. Do you know the one thing that occurred to me as I traveled around the State of Vermont? It is that I had heard from my fellow Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, saying that they would help us rebuild. I had heard the same thing from the President of the United States. They stood by Vermont’s side to help us rebuild — again, Republicans and Democrats alike — because that is who we are as Americans. We lift each other up in times of disaster. We are one country….

“Millions of Americans all over the country, as well as the Americans in Puerto Rico and the Americans in the Virgin Islands, need us to work together to help lift them up, just as we have seen in past disasters. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue; this is an American issue. This is who we are as a country. We hold together.   I have been privileged to serve here since the time of President Ford. In times of disaster, I have seen every single President, Republican and Democrat, work to help Americans and do it out of concern for Americans, not for themselves…..

“Today, I urge all Senators to support this emergency supplemental bill that will provide much needed assistance for disaster relief across the country, but it is still just the next step on the path to recovery. The Trump administration is committed to putting forward a third, more comprehensive disaster package in the coming weeks. As vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I intend to hold the administration to that commitment.   In conclusion, even in the years since Irene, this Vermonter still takes comfort in the number of Republican and Democratic Senators who called me during that storm and pledged support and, along with the pledge, came through with the support.”

Bill Summary: H.R. 2266, as co-opted and amended in the House, appropriates an additional $36.5 billion for federal disaster aid, over and above the regular budget (supplemental appropriations). That total includes $18.67 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund, $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, $1.27 billion in supplemental nutrition assistance money for Puerto Rican residents and $576.5 million in wildfire suppression.The measure also included the original, relatively minor measure by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI-13) to increase bankruptcy judges.

Analysis: This was the second installment in federal disaster aid to address the impact of recent natural disasters (the Senate approved the first $15.25 billion installment on 9-7-17, Senate Vote 192). Here, the House leadership used the political popularity of such aid to push thru additional non-emergency spending, such as $16 billion in debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program.

Aside from the fact that federal disaster aid is unconstitutional (see our analysis of Senate Vote 192), this measure made no effort to scale back less urgent or even reckless spending in other areas to address the recent natural disasters. The measure’s fiscal irresponsibility can be seen in the fact that no Democrat opposed the measure in either the House or the Senate.

In an immediately prior vote (Senate Vote 247), the Senate waived all budgetary discipline regarding the spending in H.R. 2266.

During the October 24th Senate “debate” on the measure, Senator Rand Paul was allowed time to register his opposition (contrary to normal procedure when the leadership of both parties are in agreement).   His assessment of the lack of spending restraint in Washington deserves serious attention. (Note, however, that Senator Paul failed to make the argument that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. For the future of our nation, Congress must be forced to respect the Constitution, not merely spend up to what the federal government receives in taxes.)

From the Congressional Record (10-24-17):

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Emphasis is added):

“Mr. President, we currently have a $20 trillion debt.   Now, we might ask ourselves, whose fault is it, Republicans or Democrats? The easy answer is both. Both parties are equally responsible, equally culpable, and equally guilty of ignoring the debt, ignoring the spending problem, and really I think allowing our country to rot from the inside out.   This year, the deficit will be $700 billion, for just 1 year for our country, $700 billion. We borrow about $1 million a minute. Under George W. Bush, the debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is doubling under Republicans and Democrats.

“Right now, we are in the midst of another spending frenzy. People will say: Well, we are spending the money for something good. We are going to help those in Puerto Rico, in Texas, and in Florida. My point is, if we are going to spend money to help someone in need, maybe we should take it from another area of spending that is less in need. I think that just simply borrowing it — even for something you can argue is compassionate — is really foolhardy and may make us weaker as a nation.

“Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said: The No. 1 threat to our national security is our debt. In fact, most people who follow world politics — while we do have problems around the world — don’t really see us being invaded anytime soon by an army or an armada, but people do see the burden of debt.

“So what we have before us is a bill, $36 billion, much of it going to Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida. My request is very simple: We should pay for it.   About 1 month ago, we had $15 billion for the same purposes. We are set, in all likelihood, to have over $100 billion spent on these hurricanes. I simply ask that we take it from some spending item that seems to be less pressing. We could go through a list of hundreds and hundreds of items….

“I think we ought to think twice about sending money to countries that burn our flag, sending money to countries that persecute Christians, sending money to countries that, frankly, don’t even like us.   We spend about $30 billion helping other countries. If you were going to help your neighbor, if your neighbor was without food, would you first feed your children, and if you have a little money left over, help the children next door? That is what most people would do.

“If you are going to give money to your church or synagogue, would you go to the bank and borrow the money to give to somebody? Would that be compassionate or foolhardy? Is it compassionate to borrow money to give it to someone else?

“People here will say they have great compassion, and they want to help the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Texas and the people of Florida, but notice they have great compassion with someone else’s money. Ask them if they are giving any money to Puerto Rico. Ask them if they are giving money to Texas. Ask them what they are doing to help their fellow man. You will find often it is easy to be compassionate with somebody else’s money, but it is not only that. It is not only compassion with someone else’s money, it is compassion with money that doesn’t even exist, money that is borrowed….

“They are giving money they borrowed.   So what am I asking? Not that we not do this. What I am asking is: Why don’t we take it from something we shouldn’t be doing or why don’t we try to conserve? So if you decided you want to help the people next door, you might say: I am not going to the movie theater. I am not going to go to the Broadway play. I am not going to the NFL game. I am going to save money by cutting back on my expenses so I can help the people next door who are struggling, the father and mother out of work, and they need my help — but you wouldn’t go to the bank and ask for a loan to help people.

“That is not the way it works, unless you are a government. Then common sense goes out the window, and you just spend money right and left because you are compassionate, you have a big heart, because you have the ability of the Federal Reserve just to print out more money.

“There are ultimately ramifications to profligate spending. We are approaching that day. Some say you get there when your debt is at 100 percent of your GDP. We have now surpassed that. We have about a $17 trillion, $18 trillion economy, and we have a $20 trillion debt. Is it getting any better? Have we planned on fixing it at all? No, there is no fixing.

“Is one party better than the other? No, they are equally bad. They are terrible. One side is at least honest. They don’t care about the debt. The other side is just hypocrites because they say: We are going to win the election by saying we are conservative, we care about the debt, but they don’t. The debt gets worse under both parties….

“When I first came up here, I was elected in this tea party tidal wave that was concerned about debt. Something called a sequester was passed. Guess who hated it. All the big-spending Republicans and all the big-spending Democrats. They couldn’t pass out their goodies and favors enough because there was some restraint.   You say: Well, I heard the sequester was terrible. I saw people at school and I saw people in my town saying that the sequester wasn’t giving them enough money.   The sequester was actually a slowdown in the rate of growth of spending….

“So we had a sequester, and it was evenly divided between military and nonmilitary, between Republican interests and Democratic interests. It did not cut; it slowed down the rate of growth of spending over 10 years. It was actually working to a certain degree….

“Who destroyed the sequester? Really, the voices were louder on the Republican side than the Democratic side, but both parties were complicit. The sequester has essentially been gutted and destroyed, and the spending caps have become somewhat meaningless.   We have before us today $36 billion. It will exceed the spending caps. We have a sequester in place, but there are all these exemptions, so it is exempt. Anytime you say it is an emergency, it is an exemption. Within the $36 billion, though, there is $16 billion because we run a terrible government-run flood program that is $16 billion in the hole. So we are going to bail it out by letting it wipe out all of its debt. That sounds like long-term mismanagement in a badly run program rather than an emergency. Yet it is going to be stuck in an emergency bill so it can exceed the caps.  

“What am I asking for today? I am asking that we obey our own rules. We set these rules. We set these spending caps. We set the sequester. Let’s obey them. The other side will say: Oh, we are obeying the rules; we are just not counting this money. That is the problem. We have this dishonest accounting where people say: Oh yeah, we are obeying the rules. But we are not….

“A lot of this money is actually done as an off-budget thing. It is called the overseas contingency operations. It is really a way of cheating, a way of being dishonest in your accounting. It is a way of evading spending caps, but it has also gone a long way toward making it easier to keep spending money without restraint. We tried to put restraints on military and nonmilitary, and they were exceeded by this slush fund. They call it OCO funding, or overseas contingency operations.”

Freedom First Society:  Senator Paul’s assessment that Congress doesn’t obey its own rules illustrates why the GOP demand for a Balanced Budget amendment is a deceptive if not dangerous excuse for continued fiscal irresponsibility. Rules do little good if they are not enforced and obeyed.

Since most federal spending is a violation of the Constitution, the federal monster exists and prospers because Congress regularly ignores those rules. Instead of passing new rules to be ignored, Congress must be forced to obey the existing rules — the current Constitution — by an informed electorate back home. Building that informed electorate is part of the mission of Freedom First Society and a key purpose for this no-nonsense scorecard.

The Big-Spenders

During the “debate,” several senators were eager to take credit for responding to the disasters by spending someone else’s money. Even worse, as Senator Paul explained above, the money to be spent would be created through the Federal Reserve System. Fabian Socialist economist John Maynard Keynes understood how this process worked. In his 1920 Economic Consequences of Peace, he wrote:

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”

The Fed’s ability to inflate the money supply (create new money out of thin air, diluting the value of existing money), has allowed the enormous growth of the federal monster. As the federal monster grew, gobbling up financial resources and offering easy money, the independent ability of the states to fund projects or even provide state aid decreased as they became increasingly dependent on Washington.

In reading the Senate debate, we were reminded of the comment Harry Hopkins made to a friend during an outing at a New York race track. Hopkins, assistant to President Franklin Roosevelt, said that the strategy of the Roosevelt administration was to “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.”

The arguments of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), leading the Democratic side of the debate, illustrate the mentality that federal money grows on trees and that politicians are “working hard,” “helping,” and contributing by spending it.

From the Congressional Record (10-23-17):

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (Emphasis added):

“Six years ago, I remember, in Vermont, Marcelle and I watched as communities around Vermont felt the devastating impact of Tropical Storm Irene…. Do you know the one thing that occurred to me as I traveled around the State of Vermont? It is that I had heard from my fellow Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, saying that they would help us rebuild. I had heard the same thing from the President of the United States. They stood by Vermont’s side to help us rebuild — again, Republicans and Democrats alike — because that is who we are as Americans. We lift each other up in times of disaster. We are one country….

“Millions of Americans all over the country, as well as the Americans in Puerto Rico and the Americans in the Virgin Islands, need us to work together to help lift them up, just as we have seen in past disasters. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue; this is an American issue. This is who we are as a country. We hold together.   I have been privileged to serve here since the time of President Ford. In times of disaster, I have seen every single President, Republican and Democrat, work to help Americans and do it out of concern for Americans, not for themselves…..

“Today, I urge all Senators to support this emergency supplemental bill that will provide much needed assistance for disaster relief across the country, but it is still just the next step on the path to recovery. The Trump administration is committed to putting forward a third, more comprehensive disaster package in the coming weeks. As vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I intend to hold the administration to that commitment.   In conclusion, even in the years since Irene, this Vermonter still takes comfort in the number of Republican and Democratic Senators who called me during that storm and pledged support and, along with the pledge, came through with the support.”

Bill Summary: House Joint Resolution 83 makes use of an expedited legislative process authorized by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to overturn administration rules issued within the previous 60 legislative days.

Analysis of the Department of Labor rule:  We support the GOP repeal of this rule, a last-minute parting shot by the Obama administration. However, it was clear from the House debate arguments that the GOP had accepted the federal government’s prior unconstitutional usurpation of state and local authority over the domestic workplace in the form of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (See our summary of the unconstitutional 1970 OSHA power grab, below.)

As Napoleon once astutely observed “the purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” Merely defending against further Federal regulatory intrusions will never stem the growth of Big Brother. There must be leadership for a movement to roll back the unconstitutional federal expansion.

The offending OSHA rule, known as the Volks Rule, was a unilateral attempt by OSHA to extend the statute of limitations for record keeping violations, after a prior overreach had been shot down by the Supreme Court.

In the debates, Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy (R) summarized the case for disapproving OSHA’s Volks Rule:

“This regulatory scheme represents a backwards approach to workplace safety, and it is a blatant overreach by the Federal Government.   Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to record injuries and illnesses that occur in the work place and maintain those records for 5 years. The law provides for a 6-month period for which OSHA can issue citations to employers who fail to maintain the records properly. However, it was the practice of OSHA, based on their interpretation of the law, that they were able to issue citations regarding keeping those records properly for the entire 5- year period employers must keep those records…..

“The Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous, three-judge opinion rebuking OSHA’s attempt to file citations past the statute of limitations…. The Volks ruling has since been upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals….

“After the court was clear in its ruling, OSHA, in order to negate such ruling and continue issuing citations beyond the 6-month statute of limitations, promulgated this regulation, the Volks rule.   This joint resolution must invalidate the Volks rule. “The Volks rule is a clear violation of the court’s ruling and is in direct contradiction of the 6-month statute of limitations. Only Congress can amend a Federal statute. Article I of the U.S. Constitution is clear. Members of the legislative branch write the law, not the Federal departments and agencies.   Overturning the Volks rule will not—will not—decrease workplace safety. The rule only changes the window during which OSHA can issue citations for recordkeeping violations. This rule is about paperwork violations and not workers’ health or safety.” — Congressional Record, 3-22-17

Senator Cassidy also introduced into the Congressional Record a concurring letter from the Coalition For Workplace Safety, dated March 10, 2017, which read in part:

“At its core, the Volks Rule is an extreme abuse of authority by a federal agency that will subject millions of American businesses to citations for paperwork violations, while doing nothing to improve worker health and safety.”

The 1970 OSHA Power Grab

In 1970, Congress passed the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act and President Nixon signed it into law. Citing the impact of workplace injury on interstate commerce, the act unconstitutionally usurped state and local power and authority over regulating the safety of the domestic workplace. The Act applied to every employer, small and large, in the United States.

Under the Act the Secretary of Labor would publish safety and health standards in the Federal Register, which would have the force of law. Soon after the Act took effect, OSHA published 248 pages of standards with which even small employers were expected to comply.

OSHA compliance officers had the responsibility to ensure employers complied with the standards. The Act gave them the power “to enter without delay and at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an employer; and to inspect and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent or employee.”

If the compliance officers found violations during surprise inspections, even small things such as a ladder in need of repair, they could issue citations, fines and compliance orders. Certainly, the Founding Fathers and the 13 States ratifying the Constitution never envisioned that the new government would claim such authority and responsibility.

Furthermore, the Act allowed any disgruntled employee or even a former employee to request an inspection:

“Any employees or representative of employees who believe that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists, may request an inspection by giving notice to the Secretary or his authorized representative of such violation or danger. Any such notice shall be reduced to writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employees or representative of employees, and a copy shall be provided the employer or his agent no later than at the time of inspection, except that, upon the request of the person giving such notice, his name and the names of individual employees referred to therein shall not appear in such copy or on any record published, released, or made available pursuant to subsection (g) of this section….”

The initial implementation of OSHA was extremely tyrannical and resulted in several successful court challenges. However, the basic federal intrusion has never been reversed.

 

Bill Summary: House Joint Resolution 83 makes use of an expedited legislative process authorized by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to overturn administration rules issued within the previous 60 legislative days.

Analysis of the Department of Labor rule:  We support the GOP repeal of this rule, a last-minute parting shot by the Obama administration. However, it was clear from the House debate arguments that the GOP had accepted the federal government’s prior unconstitutional usurpation of state and local authority over the domestic workplace in the form of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (See our summary of the unconstitutional 1970 OSHA power grab, below.)

As Napoleon once astutely observed “the purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” Merely defending against further Federal regulatory intrusions will never stem the growth of Big Brother. There must be leadership for a movement to roll back the unconstitutional federal expansion.

The offending OSHA rule, known as the Volks Rule, was a unilateral attempt by OSHA to extend the statute of limitations for record keeping violations, after a prior overreach had been shot down by the Supreme Court.

In the debates, Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy (R) summarized the case for disapproving OSHA’s Volks Rule:

“This regulatory scheme represents a backwards approach to workplace safety, and it is a blatant overreach by the Federal Government.   Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to record injuries and illnesses that occur in the work place and maintain those records for 5 years. The law provides for a 6-month period for which OSHA can issue citations to employers who fail to maintain the records properly. However, it was the practice of OSHA, based on their interpretation of the law, that they were able to issue citations regarding keeping those records properly for the entire 5- year period employers must keep those records…..

“The Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous, three-judge opinion rebuking OSHA’s attempt to file citations past the statute of limitations…. The Volks ruling has since been upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals….

“After the court was clear in its ruling, OSHA, in order to negate such ruling and continue issuing citations beyond the 6-month statute of limitations, promulgated this regulation, the Volks rule.   This joint resolution must invalidate the Volks rule. “The Volks rule is a clear violation of the court’s ruling and is in direct contradiction of the 6-month statute of limitations. Only Congress can amend a Federal statute. Article I of the U.S. Constitution is clear. Members of the legislative branch write the law, not the Federal departments and agencies.   Overturning the Volks rule will not—will not—decrease workplace safety. The rule only changes the window during which OSHA can issue citations for recordkeeping violations. This rule is about paperwork violations and not workers’ health or safety.” — Congressional Record, 3-22-17

Senator Cassidy also introduced into the Congressional Record a concurring letter from the Coalition For Workplace Safety, dated March 10, 2017, which read in part:

“At its core, the Volks Rule is an extreme abuse of authority by a federal agency that will subject millions of American businesses to citations for paperwork violations, while doing nothing to improve worker health and safety.”

The 1970 OSHA Power Grab

In 1970, Congress passed the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act and President Nixon signed it into law. Citing the impact of workplace injury on interstate commerce, the act unconstitutionally usurped state and local power and authority over regulating the safety of the domestic workplace. The Act applied to every employer, small and large, in the United States.

Under the Act the Secretary of Labor would publish safety and health standards in the Federal Register, which would have the force of law. Soon after the Act took effect, OSHA published 248 pages of standards with which even small employers were expected to comply.

OSHA compliance officers had the responsibility to ensure employers complied with the standards. The Act gave them the power “to enter without delay and at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an employer; and to inspect and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent or employee.”

If the compliance officers found violations during surprise inspections, even small things such as a ladder in need of repair, they could issue citations, fines and compliance orders. Certainly, the Founding Fathers and the 13 States ratifying the Constitution never envisioned that the new government would claim such authority and responsibility.

Furthermore, the Act allowed any disgruntled employee or even a former employee to request an inspection:

“Any employees or representative of employees who believe that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists, may request an inspection by giving notice to the Secretary or his authorized representative of such violation or danger. Any such notice shall be reduced to writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employees or representative of employees, and a copy shall be provided the employer or his agent no later than at the time of inspection, except that, upon the request of the person giving such notice, his name and the names of individual employees referred to therein shall not appear in such copy or on any record published, released, or made available pursuant to subsection (g) of this section….”

The initial implementation of OSHA was extremely tyrannical and resulted in several successful court challenges. However, the basic federal intrusion has never been reversed.

 

Congressional Research Service Summary:

Increasing Opportunity through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act

This bill amends title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) to reauthorize through FY2022, and otherwise revise, the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program.

Under current law, grantees were required, after three years of program implementation, to demonstrate improvement in specified benchmark areas. The bill requires grantees to continue, in subsequent years, to track and demonstrate improvement in applicable benchmark areas. A grantee that fails to do so must develop and implement a corrective action plan, subject to approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS shall terminate a program grant made to a grantee that implements such a plan but continues to fail to demonstrate improvement.

As a condition for receiving grant funds under the program, a state must conduct a statewide needs assessment by October 1, 2019, and at least once every five years thereafter.

A grantee may use program grant funds to support a “pay-for-outcomes initiative” (a performance-based grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, awarded by a public entity, in which a commitment is made to pay for improved outcomes that result in social benefit and public-sector cost savings).

Grantees must provide matching funds under the program beginning in FY2020.

HHS must designate data-exchange standards applicable to the program.

The bill also amends title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) (SSI) under the SSAct to prohibit the payment of SSI benefits to an individual who is subject to an arrest warrant for: (1) committing, or attempting to commit, a felony; or (2) violating a condition of parole or probation.  [Emphasis added.]

Constitutional Authority Statement:

As required by House rules, the bill sponsor, Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE-03), provided a statement of constitutional authority to support H.R. 2824.   He chose the following convenient copout:

“Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, to ‘provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.’” [See page H4819 in the Congressional Record]

Unfortunately, the “general welfare” clause in Article I, Section 8, is commonly used to create the appearance that unconstitutional congressional acts are constitutional. As Notre Dame Law School Professor Charles Rice wrote in 1987: “The Constitution created a government of limited, delegated powers. The term ‘general welfare’ in Article I, Section 8, does not confer on Congress a general power to legislate and regulate for purposes beyond those enumerated in the remaining clauses of Section 8.”

At America’s founding, James Madison had also corrected this misinterpretation in Federalist No. 41:

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

But politicians today still get away with claiming that the general welfare clause gives them a grant of power to do almost anything if they can project some benefit for the general welfare. (Example: How about forbidding families from having more than one child to promote population control or to stop climate change?)

Analysis: The Founders must be turning over in their graves at the thought that the federal government they created would claim any power in the Constitution to concern itself with matters such as parent training. This program is an excellent example of creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory. The poison is the federal support for the culture war and the erosion of the religious foundations essential to a free society and strong families.

The following excerpts from the “debate” as recorded in the Congressional Record (9-26-17) are indicative of the Washington mindset:

Mr. Adrian Smith (R) NE-03:

“This bill would reauthorize the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, known as MIECHV, for 5 years and make sure the program continues to focus on results….

“The MIECHV Program helps support State and local efforts to provide voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services to parents and children living in communities that put them at risk of poor social and health outcomes, including in rural areas like those I represent.   Unlike many other programs that focus on money spent or people served, this program focuses on achieving real results for families. Specifically, this program promotes school readiness of young children, increases economic self-sufficiency of families, improves prenatal health and birth outcomes, and prevents childhood abuse and neglect.”

Mr. Danny K. Davis (D) IL-07:

“H.R. 2824 presents substantial cuts to home visiting and threatens the effectiveness of services for vulnerable children and families. Equally bad, the rule under which we are considering this bill conditions home visiting help to vulnerable families on harming seniors and persons with disabilities. Although we are not voting on that provision today, the rule we are considering this bill under makes it an inescapable part of it.   I join with over 110 civil rights, disability, and aging agencies to strongly oppose the Republican effort to pay for home visiting services that strengthen vulnerable children by stripping certain low-income seniors and those with severe disabilities of basic income they need to survive….

“826 organizations urged the House and Senate leaders to ‘reauthorize this important program for 5 years, with a doubling of funding from $400 million, annually, to $800 million, annually, to allow States, territories, and Tribes to expand these services to more children and families.’”

Mr. Sander Levin (D) MI-09:

“Madam Chair, I am disappointed that this bill, H.R. 2824, injects needless controversy into reauthorizing the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program.   Home visiting is an evidence-based approach that connects pregnant women and families with young children to nurses, social workers, and other professionals. Through these programs, parents learn skills that help reduce abuse and neglect and improve child development during the crucial early years of life….

“Research shows that home visiting programs are working well, yet only 6 percent of eligible individuals currently participate. We should be looking at expanding, not undermining, access to home visiting.”

Mr. Mike Bishop (R) MI-08:

“This is about skilled professionals working with young parents to help them be the parents they want to be. It is about family values. It is about strengthening and protecting families, particularly disadvantaged families.”

 

Bill Summary: The original topic of H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act, was an unconstitutional acceptance of federal responsibility for improving educational opportunities in developing nations. Originally passed by the House in January by voice vote, the version here had been amended to include three other unrelated topics: 1) $15 billion in disaster relief from Hurricane Harvey; 2) a Continuing Resolution to fund all government departments and programs into the new fiscal year until December 8; and 3) raising the national debt ceiling to cover authorized expenditures during that same period. We quote excerpts here from the Congressional Research Services summary of the 4 divisions of the bill (emphasis added):

Division A — Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to state that it shall be U.S. policy to work with partner countries, other donors, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental and civil society organizations (including faith-based organizations and organizations that represent teachers, students, and parents) to promote basic education through programs that: (1) respond to the needs and capacities of developing countries to improve literacy and other basic skills; (2) strengthen educational systems, expand access to safe learning environments (including by breaking down barriers to basic education for women and girls), and support the engagement of parents in their children’s education; (3) promote education as a foundation for economic growth; (4) monitor and evaluate basic education programs in partner countries; and (5) promote U.S. values, especially respect for all persons and freedoms of religion, speech, and the press.

(Sec. 5) Establishes within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) the position of Senior Coordinator of United States International Basic Education Assistance, who shall have primary responsibility for the oversight and coordination of U.S. government resources and activities relating to the promotion of international basic education.

Division B — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017

Provides $15.25 billion in FY2017 supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for disaster relief requirements, such as response and recovery efforts from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma…. (Emergency spending is exempt from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules.)

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

(Sec. 101) Suspends the public debt limit through December 8, 2017. Increases the limit on December 9, 2017, to accommodate obligations issued during the suspension period.

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

(This division provides continuing appropriations to federal agencies through December 8, 2017, or the enactment of specified appropriations legislation. It is known as a continuing resolution [CR] and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur when FY2018 begins on October 1, 2017, if the twelve FY2017 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government have not been enacted….)

(Sec. 101) Provides FY2018 appropriations to federal agencies for continuing projects or activities at the levels of, and under the terms and conditions of specified FY2017 appropriations Acts, reduced by 0.6791%.

Analysis:  One significant objection to this package is the very fact that it is a package, a package designed to win Democratic support for a continuation of big-government business as usual.   Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who voted for the measure, which included Hurricane Harvey relief aid to his home state, stated before the vote:

“It is unfortunate that Congressional leadership and the Administration chose to tie Harvey relief to short-term extensions to the [continuing resolution] and the debt ceiling. I would have much preferred a clean Harvey relief bill — which would have passed both Houses nearly unanimously.”

Let’s look at each division individually:

Division A. Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

Comments during the January House “debate” over this division illustrate just how far leading members of Congress are from the vision of limited constitutional government:

Representative Ed Royce (R-CA-39): For women in particular, a primary school education is directly correlated very strongly with improved maternal-child health and improved survival rates.   Yet, around the world, as we know here, there are 120 million children that are not in school. More than one-third of these children, as Nita Lowey [The sponsor of the measure] can testify, come from countries that are embroiled in war, embroiled in conflict, and many of these recent conflicts have lasted for over a decade.   We are now seeing entire generations of these young children who are failing to receive even the most basic education.   You want to talk about a humanitarian crisis?   This is it. There are clear implications for global stability and for our security…. This bill, the READ Act, introduces the new guidelines and the increased accountability for existing U.S. efforts to improve access to basic education in developing and conflict-torn countries…. It also requires increased attention to what is most important here, and that is to the specific barriers to education that are faced by women and girls.

Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY-17): Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of bipartisan legislation that would increase transparency and congressional oversight of U.S. basic education programs around the world.   H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development– READ–Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Representative David Reichert, would elevate the importance of education while improving USAID’s efforts and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well spent.   The challenge is clear. Nearly 60 million primary school-age children and 65 million adolescents are out of school around the world. Millions more are expected to never enroll. Women and girls are disproportionately out of school. The United States has a clear moral, economic, and security interest in promoting universal basic education as a fundamental human right.

Representative Brenda Lawrence (D-MI-14): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 601. As a parent who was very involved in my children’s education and served as President of the Southfield Public Schools Board of Education, I firmly believe the importance of promoting education to all regions of the world. Education is a universal human right that should be obtained by every young mind of the world.   Access to basic education is a human right that must be guaranteed to all children. In my role as the Vice Chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus during the 115th Congress, I will work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to highlight barriers to basic education, specifically focusing on girls’ education in the developing world. Providing girls with an education helps break the cycle of poverty. Educated women are less likely to get married, more likely to have healthy babies, and are more likely to understand the value of education…. I am grateful that our Chamber has taken this important step to ensure that the United States dedicates our time and resources to helping the future of the world gain an education. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their continued support of universal education for all.

Division B. — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017 ($15.25 billion in FY2017).

Following Hurricane Irene, another natural disaster that hit Texas in 2011, the House grappled with a number of bills to replenish “federal disaster aid funds.” Following an early House vote, the Establishment’s New York Times commented:

“Democrats and Republicans agree that [disaster] assistance is one of the government’s main responsibilities, but disagree over how much of the cost can be anticipated and how much, if any, should be offset.” [Emphasis added.] —“House Rebukes G.O.P. Leaders Over Spending,” New York Times, 9/21/11

If the Times was correct, then both parties agreed that the Constitution is irrelevant. And both parties supported this new measure in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. There was no opposition from Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans supported the measure, 33 to 17.

However, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.   At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood.

In one of his most famous vetoes, President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” that would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties. On February 16, 1886, Cleveland delivered his veto message to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

Correcting the mess doesn’t necessarily mean going “cold turkey” on all unconstitutional spending.   In some cases, it just means letting programs run their course and expire. But restoring constitutional government does means slashing the enormous borrowing, taxing, and spending of the federal government, so the states can acquire the revenue to do what the voters want their states to do and the voters have the means to provide private charity and “strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

The Trump administration was calling for a “clean” debt limit increase, divorced of “partisan” policy riders, and it got its way. Although no one wants to see the federal government default on its debt, we need to realize that the debt is driven by unconstitutional spending, programs, and departments.   The best place to tackle this problem, when an informed public gives Congress the backbone to do so, is with appropriations (and the House using its power of the purse, see next).

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The primary questions re any continuing appropriations (CR) measure should be why and for what? Why is more time needed (since the federal fiscal year was advanced 3 months in 1976 to give Congress more time) and to accomplish what?
In this case, the CR was clearly for the purpose of fashioning an omnibus spending bill, which is exactly the wrong approach for bringing government under control. And, in fact, within a week, the House passed its own omnibus appropriations measure for FY2018 (see Roll Call 528, 9-14-17), opening the door for a compromise with Senate liberals before the CR expires.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. The bottom line is that we need to insist that our representatives refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures. And the House could even craft CRs to exclude appropriations bills it had already passed, if it were bent on really trimming the federal government.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated it recently when he stated that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

The Founding Fathers gave the House the power of the purse so that an informed public could use its leverage with their elected representatives to give the federal government its marching orders.

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

Bill Summary: The original topic of H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act, was an unconstitutional acceptance of federal responsibility for improving educational opportunities in developing nations. Originally passed by the House in January by voice vote, the version here had been amended to include three other unrelated topics: 1) $15 billion in disaster relief from Hurricane Harvey; 2) a Continuing Resolution to fund all government departments and programs into the new fiscal year until December 8; and 3) raising the national debt ceiling to cover authorized expenditures during that same period. We quote excerpts here from the Congressional Research Services summary of the 4 divisions of the bill (emphasis added):

Division A — Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to state that it shall be U.S. policy to work with partner countries, other donors, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental and civil society organizations (including faith-based organizations and organizations that represent teachers, students, and parents) to promote basic education through programs that: (1) respond to the needs and capacities of developing countries to improve literacy and other basic skills; (2) strengthen educational systems, expand access to safe learning environments (including by breaking down barriers to basic education for women and girls), and support the engagement of parents in their children’s education; (3) promote education as a foundation for economic growth; (4) monitor and evaluate basic education programs in partner countries; and (5) promote U.S. values, especially respect for all persons and freedoms of religion, speech, and the press.

(Sec. 5) Establishes within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) the position of Senior Coordinator of United States International Basic Education Assistance, who shall have primary responsibility for the oversight and coordination of U.S. government resources and activities relating to the promotion of international basic education.

Division B — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017

Provides $15.25 billion in FY2017 supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for disaster relief requirements, such as response and recovery efforts from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma…. (Emergency spending is exempt from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules.)

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

(Sec. 101) Suspends the public debt limit through December 8, 2017. Increases the limit on December 9, 2017, to accommodate obligations issued during the suspension period.

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

(This division provides continuing appropriations to federal agencies through December 8, 2017, or the enactment of specified appropriations legislation. It is known as a continuing resolution [CR] and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur when FY2018 begins on October 1, 2017, if the twelve FY2017 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government have not been enacted….)

(Sec. 101) Provides FY2018 appropriations to federal agencies for continuing projects or activities at the levels of, and under the terms and conditions of specified FY2017 appropriations Acts, reduced by 0.6791%.

Analysis:  One significant objection to this package is the very fact that it is a package, a package designed to win Democratic support for a continuation of big-government business as usual.   Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who voted for the measure, which included Hurricane Harvey relief aid to his home state, stated before the vote:

“It is unfortunate that Congressional leadership and the Administration chose to tie Harvey relief to short-term extensions to the [continuing resolution] and the debt ceiling. I would have much preferred a clean Harvey relief bill — which would have passed both Houses nearly unanimously.”

Let’s look at each division individually:

Division A. Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

Comments during the January House “debate” over this division illustrate just how far leading members of Congress are from the vision of limited constitutional government:

Representative Ed Royce (R-CA-39): For women in particular, a primary school education is directly correlated very strongly with improved maternal-child health and improved survival rates.   Yet, around the world, as we know here, there are 120 million children that are not in school. More than one-third of these children, as Nita Lowey [The sponsor of the measure] can testify, come from countries that are embroiled in war, embroiled in conflict, and many of these recent conflicts have lasted for over a decade.   We are now seeing entire generations of these young children who are failing to receive even the most basic education.   You want to talk about a humanitarian crisis?   This is it. There are clear implications for global stability and for our security…. This bill, the READ Act, introduces the new guidelines and the increased accountability for existing U.S. efforts to improve access to basic education in developing and conflict-torn countries…. It also requires increased attention to what is most important here, and that is to the specific barriers to education that are faced by women and girls.

Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY-17): Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of bipartisan legislation that would increase transparency and congressional oversight of U.S. basic education programs around the world.   H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development– READ–Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Representative David Reichert, would elevate the importance of education while improving USAID’s efforts and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well spent.   The challenge is clear. Nearly 60 million primary school-age children and 65 million adolescents are out of school around the world. Millions more are expected to never enroll. Women and girls are disproportionately out of school. The United States has a clear moral, economic, and security interest in promoting universal basic education as a fundamental human right.

Representative Brenda Lawrence (D-MI-14): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 601. As a parent who was very involved in my children’s education and served as President of the Southfield Public Schools Board of Education, I firmly believe the importance of promoting education to all regions of the world. Education is a universal human right that should be obtained by every young mind of the world.   Access to basic education is a human right that must be guaranteed to all children. In my role as the Vice Chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus during the 115th Congress, I will work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to highlight barriers to basic education, specifically focusing on girls’ education in the developing world. Providing girls with an education helps break the cycle of poverty. Educated women are less likely to get married, more likely to have healthy babies, and are more likely to understand the value of education…. I am grateful that our Chamber has taken this important step to ensure that the United States dedicates our time and resources to helping the future of the world gain an education. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their continued support of universal education for all.

Division B. — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017 ($15.25 billion in FY2017).

Following Hurricane Irene, another natural disaster that hit Texas in 2011, the House grappled with a number of bills to replenish “federal disaster aid funds.” Following an early House vote, the Establishment’s New York Times commented:

“Democrats and Republicans agree that [disaster] assistance is one of the government’s main responsibilities, but disagree over how much of the cost can be anticipated and how much, if any, should be offset.” [Emphasis added.] —“House Rebukes G.O.P. Leaders Over Spending,” New York Times, 9/21/11

If the Times was correct, then both parties agreed that the Constitution is irrelevant. And both parties supported this new measure in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. There was no opposition from Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans supported the measure, 33 to 17.

However, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.   At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood.

In one of his most famous vetoes, President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” that would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties. On February 16, 1886, Cleveland delivered his veto message to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

Correcting the mess doesn’t necessarily mean going “cold turkey” on all unconstitutional spending.   In some cases, it just means letting programs run their course and expire. But restoring constitutional government does means slashing the enormous borrowing, taxing, and spending of the federal government, so the states can acquire the revenue to do what the voters want their states to do and the voters have the means to provide private charity and “strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

The Trump administration was calling for a “clean” debt limit increase, divorced of “partisan” policy riders, and it got its way. Although no one wants to see the federal government default on its debt, we need to realize that the debt is driven by unconstitutional spending, programs, and departments.   The best place to tackle this problem, when an informed public gives Congress the backbone to do so, is with appropriations (and the House using its power of the purse, see next).

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The primary questions re any continuing appropriations (CR) measure should be why and for what? Why is more time needed (since the federal fiscal year was advanced 3 months in 1976 to give Congress more time) and to accomplish what?
In this case, the CR was clearly for the purpose of fashioning an omnibus spending bill, which is exactly the wrong approach for bringing government under control. And, in fact, within a week, the House passed its own omnibus appropriations measure for FY2018 (see Roll Call 528, 9-14-17), opening the door for a compromise with Senate liberals before the CR expires.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. The bottom line is that we need to insist that our representatives refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures. And the House could even craft CRs to exclude appropriations bills it had already passed, if it were bent on really trimming the federal government.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated it recently when he stated that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

The Founding Fathers gave the House the power of the purse so that an informed public could use its leverage with their elected representatives to give the federal government its marching orders.

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

Bill Summary: The original topic of H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act, was an unconstitutional acceptance of federal responsibility for improving educational opportunities in developing nations. Originally passed in January by voice vote, the version here had been amended to include three other unrelated topics: 1) $15 billion in disaster relief from Hurricane Harvey; 2) a Continuing Resolution to fund all government departments and programs into the new fiscal year until December 8; and 3) raising the national debt ceiling to cover authorized expenditures during that same period. We quote excerpts here from the Congressional Research Services summary of the 4 divisions of the bill (emphasis added):

Division A — Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to state that it shall be U.S. policy to work with partner countries, other donors, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental and civil society organizations (including faith-based organizations and organizations that represent teachers, students, and parents) to promote basic education through programs that: (1) respond to the needs and capacities of developing countries to improve literacy and other basic skills; (2) strengthen educational systems, expand access to safe learning environments (including by breaking down barriers to basic education for women and girls), and support the engagement of parents in their children’s education; (3) promote education as a foundation for economic growth; (4) monitor and evaluate basic education programs in partner countries; and (5) promote U.S. values, especially respect for all persons and freedoms of religion, speech, and the press.

(Sec. 5) Establishes within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) the position of Senior Coordinator of United States International Basic Education Assistance, who shall have primary responsibility for the oversight and coordination of U.S. government resources and activities relating to the promotion of international basic education.

Division B — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017

Provides $15.25 billion in FY2017 supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for disaster relief requirements, such as response and recovery efforts from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma…. (Emergency spending is exempt from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules.)

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

(Sec. 101) Suspends the public debt limit through December 8, 2017. Increases the limit on December 9, 2017, to accommodate obligations issued during the suspension period.

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

(This division provides continuing appropriations to federal agencies through December 8, 2017, or the enactment of specified appropriations legislation. It is known as a continuing resolution [CR] and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur when FY2018 begins on October 1, 2017, if the twelve FY2017 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government have not been enacted….)

(Sec. 101) Provides FY2018 appropriations to federal agencies for continuing projects or activities at the levels of, and under the terms and conditions of specified FY2017 appropriations Acts, reduced by 0.6791%.

Analysis:  One significant objection to this package is the very fact that it is a package, a package designed to win Democratic support for a continuation of big-government business as usual.   Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who voted for the measure, which included Hurricane Harvey relief aid to his home state, stated before the vote:

“It is unfortunate that Congressional leadership and the Administration chose to tie Harvey relief to short-term extensions to the [continuing resolution] and the debt ceiling. I would have much preferred a clean Harvey relief bill — which would have passed both Houses nearly unanimously.”

Let’s look at each division individually:

Division A. Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

Comments during the January House “debate” over this division illustrate just how far leading members of Congress are from the vision of limited constitutional government:

Representative Ed Royce (R-CA-39): For women in particular, a primary school education is directly correlated very strongly with improved maternal-child health and improved survival rates.   Yet, around the world, as we know here, there are 120 million children that are not in school. More than one-third of these children, as Nita Lowey [The sponsor of the measure] can testify, come from countries that are embroiled in war, embroiled in conflict, and many of these recent conflicts have lasted for over a decade.   We are now seeing entire generations of these young children who are failing to receive even the most basic education.   You want to talk about a humanitarian crisis?   This is it. There are clear implications for global stability and for our security…. This bill, the READ Act, introduces the new guidelines and the increased accountability for existing U.S. efforts to improve access to basic education in developing and conflict-torn countries…. It also requires increased attention to what is most important here, and that is to the specific barriers to education that are faced by women and girls.

Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY-17): Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of bipartisan legislation that would increase transparency and congressional oversight of U.S. basic education programs around the world.   H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development– READ–Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Representative David Reichert, would elevate the importance of education while improving USAID’s efforts and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well spent.   The challenge is clear. Nearly 60 million primary school-age children and 65 million adolescents are out of school around the world. Millions more are expected to never enroll. Women and girls are disproportionately out of school. The United States has a clear moral, economic, and security interest in promoting universal basic education as a fundamental human right.

Representative Brenda Lawrence (D-MI-14): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 601. As a parent who was very involved in my children’s education and served as President of the Southfield Public Schools Board of Education, I firmly believe the importance of promoting education to all regions of the world. Education is a universal human right that should be obtained by every young mind of the world.   Access to basic education is a human right that must be guaranteed to all children. In my role as the Vice Chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus during the 115th Congress, I will work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to highlight barriers to basic education, specifically focusing on girls’ education in the developing world. Providing girls with an education helps break the cycle of poverty. Educated women are less likely to get married, more likely to have healthy babies, and are more likely to understand the value of education…. I am grateful that our Chamber has taken this important step to ensure that the United States dedicates our time and resources to helping the future of the world gain an education. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their continued support of universal education for all.

Division B. — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017 ($15.25 billion in FY2017).

Following Hurricane Irene, another natural disaster that hit Texas in 2011, the House grappled with a number of bills to replenish “federal disaster aid funds.” Following an early House vote, the Establishment’s New York Times commented:

“Democrats and Republicans agree that [disaster] assistance is one of the government’s main responsibilities, but disagree over how much of the cost can be anticipated and how much, if any, should be offset.” [Emphasis added.] —“House Rebukes G.O.P. Leaders Over Spending,” New York Times, 9/21/11

If the Times was correct, then both parties agreed that the Constitution is irrelevant. And both parties supported this measure in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. There was no opposition from the Democrats and Republicans supported the measure, 133 to 90. GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan commented:

“Nothing can really capture just how big and wide this devastation is,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said, speaking about the damage left by Hurricane Harvey. “You hear a lot of numbers. Tens of thousands of people in shelters. Hundreds of thousands of homes damaged. Nothing can really capture this.”

However, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.   At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood.

In one of his most famous vetoes, President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” that would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties. On February 16, 1886, Cleveland delivered his veto message to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

Correcting the mess doesn’t necessarily mean going “cold turkey” on all unconstitutional spending.   In some cases, it just means letting programs run their course and expire. But restoring constitutional government does means slashing the enormous borrowing, taxing, and spending of the federal government, so the states can acquire the revenue to do what the voters want their states to do and the voters have the means to provide private charity and “strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.” 

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

The Trump administration was calling for a “clean” debt limit increase, divorced of “partisan” policy riders, and it got its way. Although no one wants to see the federal government default on its debt, we need to realize that the debt is driven by unconstitutional spending, programs, and departments.   The best place to tackle this problem, when an informed public gives Congress the backbone to do so, is with appropriations (and the House using its power of the purse, see next).

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The primary questions re any continuing appropriations (CR) measure should be why and for what? Why is more time needed (since the federal fiscal year was advanced 3 months in 1976 to give Congress more time) and to accomplish what?

In this case, the CR was clearly for the purpose of fashioning an omnibus spending bill, which is exactly the wrong approach for bringing government under control. And, in fact, within a week, the House passed its own omnibus appropriations measure for FY2018 (see Roll Call 528, 9-14-17), opening the door for a compromise with Senate liberals before the CR expires.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. The bottom line is that we need to insist that our representatives refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures. And the House could even craft CRs to exclude appropriations bills it had already passed, if it were bent on really trimming the federal government.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated it recently when he stated that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

The Founding Fathers gave the House the power of the purse so that an informed public could use its leverage with their elected representatives to give the federal government its marching orders.

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.