Bills

Bill Summary: Note: H.R. 2029 was introduced, and earlier considered in both the House and Senate, as “Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.”Through two House amendments, specified in H.Res. 566, H.R. 2029 became the vehicle for The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015.

This massive legislation was filed early on the morning of 12-16-15. In the House, the two amendments were considered separately. The first amendment extended $650 billion worth of tax breaks and made $590 billion of them permanent. That amendment was approved in Roll Call 703 on 12-17-15.

The second amendment, the subject of this roll call, is a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill that funds the government through September 2016 (FY2016).

The Senate approved the resulting House amended H.R. 2029 later that day.

Analysis: This bipartisan, bicameral “compromise,” negotiated with the help of the new House Majority Leader, Paul Ryan, was divided into two parts to aid passage in the House.

The Tax Extenders package (Roll Call 703) enjoyed overwhelming GOP support (241 to 3) and significant support from Democrats (77 in favor, as opposed to 106 against). Passage of this GOP sweetener was deemed necessary to facilitate the adoption of the full package in the Senate. As we shall see, it was a poor exchange.

By contrast, passage of the omnibus spending bill, this roll call, was opposed by a significant block (95) of House Republicans but had overwhelming (166 to 18) Democratic support.

According to AP (12-16-15): “Democrats, despite their minority party status in Congress, exacted a steep price in the negotiations, thanks to Obama’s veto pen and Republicans’ need for their votes on the spending bill. ‘We may not be in the majority but we’re feeling that these goals are on track,’ boasted Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.”

Prior backroom budget deal

At the end of October, outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a backroom budget deal that gave President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. (See House Roll Call 579.) The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 drew the unanimous support of House and Senate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Only a minority of Republicans in both chambers supported it.

The “budget deal” raised the sequester-imposed budget caps, providing new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 (and removed the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017). This allowed House and Senate appropriators to develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.

Following the enactment of the budget deal, we could find no suggestion that perhaps it would be better for the American people if the federal government didn’t spend to the new limits. Media reports had focused on the horrible plight of a spending-limited federal government, in particular GOP complaints over the previous cap on defense spending and liberal Democrat complaints over the companion cap on non-defense domestic spending.

South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford was one of the few opponents allowed time to speak against the budget agreement. His assessment provided needed perspective:

As draconian as [the budget caps] are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity….

Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a “no.”

No “honeymoon” justified

Anticipating the favorable House omnibus spending vote, Washington’s Roll Call (“Ryan Gets High Marks for First Big Showdown,” 12-17-15) reminded us of the current political line:

John A. Boehner’s last days as speaker in October were spent, as he said, cleaning out the barn, or cutting legislative deals to help his successor, Paul D. Ryan, get off to a good start.

This meant that the Democrats would get the money they wanted, while the Republicans would get a few riders. Surprisingly, Roll Call candidly described the blatant “bipartisan” politics that are destroying America’s prosperity:

A budget deal crafted during Boehner’s final days in office will allow House Republicans to pass appropriations bills next year at levels that House Democrats can live with.

Following publication of the negotiated package the previous day, Ryan told reporters:

I don’t think this is the way government should work. This is not how appropriations should work…. We played the cards that we were dealt…. In divided government, you don’t get everything you want. This is a bipartisan compromise; this is a bicameral compromise.

Ryan promised that for FY 2017, the House would seek regular order, wherein the 12 appropriations subcommittees would do their work and have their work presented to the full House, getting away from the last-minute omnibus approach.

But these comments perpetuate two massive deceptions.

“Power of the Purse”

The first deception conceals the House’s true power of the purse. A “conservative” majority in either chamber can agree to fund what it feels is appropriate and merely abstain from funding anything deemed inappropriate. It does not have to compromise with socialists to perpetuate unconstitutional spending.

The “must compromise” deception conceals the proper strategy of funding with individual appropriations bills, making it difficult for a big-spending president to refuse to sign everything by claiming that one chamber is “shutting down” the government.

If the House truly needed more time to prepare the individual appropriations bills, why not offer another continuing resolution for a limited time? Why fund the federal government for the remaining nine months of FY 2016 at $1.15 trillion?

Serious spending cuts did not need to be postponed until FY 2017 to the further detriment of the country (deferring tough action to future Congresses has been a regular political ploy for decades). But with favorable press coverage the extended deal insulated politicians from pressure from concerned constituents when they run for reelection in November.

The essential standard — the U.S. Constitution

Regular order with individual appropriations bills is essential for a committed House to use its Power of the Purse to tame the federal monster.

But regular order is not enough. A second deception conceals the essential standard.

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutionally authorized role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Why is the Constitution ignored? The sad truth is that an increasing number of congressmen in both parties, particularly among the leadership, are simply beholden to Establishment influence and willing to implement its totalitarian agenda. With the media supporting the same agenda, they know that uninformed voters can be satisfied with fluff.

Virtually all votes on measures that would reverse the growth in federal power and threaten that agenda are mere posturing votes, intended to impress the voters, but not become law.   And when hard votes are needed to fuel the Establishment agenda, as with this $1.15 trillion omnibus appropriations bill, the leadership of the conservative posturing GOP finds the pretext for teeming up with liberal Democrats to betray America, allowing 95 of its own members to maintain a tough image back home.

Today, there are, unfortunately, few sitting representatives or senators who are demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. Even “conservative” politicians argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

In particular, the leaders of both parties behave as though the Constitution does not impose any restraints.

Socialist Democrats argue the insidious line that government programs are the solution to all kinds of disparities and inequities. Establishment Republicans, on the other hand, object to some of these programs as burdens on the economy. And both argue over how much America can afford for the federal government to spend and whether our national debt and deficits are more of a danger than not moving forward with federal programs.

In short, the GOP leadership has managed to pacify many conservatives by appearing to be the voice of restraint.   But as Napoleon pointed out: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”

The federal monster cannot be tamed with defensive tinkering. Limited government requires respect for hard limits. Only the Constitution provides those limits. Congress must be made to obey the law (i.e., the Constitution).

Serious rollbacks of prior “socialist” usurpations requires a committed House with backbone supplied from a determined, informed electorate. As examples, three areas where the federal government has no authority to be involved include: education, housing, and health care. (The latter intrusion required almost a century of socialist agitation to accomplish.)

Even though the will to roll back these socialist inroads does not exist in Congress today, responsible representatives must obey their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and not compromise on basic principle. They must set the example and lead the way for reinforcements.

Bill Summary: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 had two major functions: Title I — Provide new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 and Title IX — remove the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017.H.R. 1314 also made adjustments to several other programs (e.g., Social Security, Obamacare, Agriculture, and Strategic Petroleum Reserves), some to provide offsets with disputed fiscal impact.

History of H.R. 1314:  It has become common for congressional leaders to use legislative “tricks” to overcome parliamentary obstacles to considering major legislation. These “tricks,” which involve amending legislation already passed in one chamber for a completely different purpose, make it difficult for the casual public to follow what is going on.

H.R. 1314 was passed in April by voice vote as the “Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act.” The Senate then amended the Act as the “Trade Act of 2015” and sent it back to the House. Finally, H.R. 1314, through further House Amendment, became the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015” and as such was agreed to by the House and Senate and sent to the president.

Freedom First Society Analysis: This backroom budget deal gives President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. It drew the unanimous support of Senate Democrats and only a minority (18 to 35) of Republicans.

The “budget deal” raises the budget caps, so that House and Senate appropriators will develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.   Some legislators criticized budget gimmicks with “offsets” designed to allow supporters to claim that spending was not being increased.

The “budget deal” also temporarily removes the ceiling for the National Debt again without any effort to reduce the deficit. Proponents and media stories are heralding passage as a great accomplishment to avoid a “disastrous” default on servicing our $18 trillion in debt.

The raise-the-debt ceiling or default scenario presents Americans with false alternatives.   There is another alternative. Either the GOP-controlled House or the GOP-controlled Senate, with sufficient backbone, could use the power of the purse to trim unconstitutional spending and, in short order, turn deficits into surpluses.

The Real Problem

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutional role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find any representative or senator who is demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. They argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

A good time to have addressed the looming debt-ceiling problem was during the appropriations process leading up to FY 2016, which began October 1. Even the Continuing Resolution that provided appropriations thru December 11 could have included major cuts in spending.

At those times, Congress would have had good leverage to impose fiscal restraint. However, Congress could have attacked the spending problem at any time since or even included spending cuts within a more limited raise of the debt ceiling to avoid a last minute default.

Some insightful remarks from the Senate debate (Congressional Record):

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama):

Mr. President, the budget passage that will soon be before us essentially does a number of things. One of the more basic is that it spends a lot more money than the current law allows, and it is done in a way that the new Speaker of the House said “stinks” a day or so ago.

Once again a massive deal is crafted behind closed doors and is being rushed through Congress under the threat of panic. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 serves as a reminder that the most important and controversial legislation is still being drafted in secret with little or no input from the Members of this Chamber. We have been cut out of the process. No amendments will be allowed to this massive package, and the cloture vote will be filed immediately after the bill is placed on the floor in order to force a vote, limiting the debate to the shortest possible time under the rules of the Senate. Those who question, object, and want more time, are accused of wanting to shut down the government and disrupt the machinery of the government. They say that President Obama will accuse us of shutting down the government. They say that we should cower under our debt at this great charge he might make against us. As if insisting that we have a right to read and study a bill of this magnitude is out of order….

At its core, this deal with President Obama provides what the President has demanded throughout.

First, it lifts the Federal spending caps for 2 years, including a $40 billion increase in spending on the Federal bureaucracy. A “yes” vote affirms that this spending level–the new high spending level–is correct and that we need to spend this much money.

Second, it erases the current debt limit we have that stops spending or borrowing money above a certain amount. It erases that debt limit until March of 2017, allowing for approximately $1.5 trillion more to be added to our debt of $18.4 trillion, and it could be more than that.

The text states that at that date the debt ceiling shall be raised to whatever level of public debt is at that time. Unlike in the past, when we had a debt ceiling, it was a dollar amount, and we would raise it and approve a certain dollar amount. Suspending this limit is a very unwise process. It was done last time and should not be done in the future–raise it to a date in the future and indicate, in effect, that as much debt as Congress or the President wants to add in that time is approved. We don’t even know the amount. This is a covert and clever way of raising the debt ceiling without having to engage in a real discussion of Washington’s runaway spending problem. It ensures that no further serious conversation about our debt course or any corresponding action to alter it will take place.

Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas):

In my mind, one of the most important issues that we face in this country today is the fiscal condition of our country. The amount of debt that we incur and the amount of debt that we continue to incur is a significant drag on our economy, on job creation, and, in reality, on the American dream.

It is an economic issue. At some point in time, if we don’t get our fiscal house in order, we will pay a significant price. We can either deal with this issue in a gradual, incremental way, in which we set ourselves on a path to right, or we can wait for the crisis to occur, which I have no doubt will happen.

While it is often said that this is an economic issue, and fiscal issues matter to the country, I also would point out that this is not just an economic issue. It is a moral issue. The borrowing of money to pay for services and goods that the government provides the American people is a selfish circumstance in which we take the so-called benefits of government programs today and expect future generations of Americans to pay for those benefits. It is wrong economically for us to continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility, but it is also morally wrong to expect someone else to pay for the so-called benefits we receive today….

Here is the point I want to make. If we give up the leverage, the opportunity that this issue presents to us as Members of Congress, to force us to do things that we apparently don’t have the will, the courage, the political desire to do, how do we ever get it done? Again, I guess there will be editorialists–certainly across the country and perhaps a few in Kansas–who will say that we need to raise the debt ceiling because it is irresponsible not to. Isn’t it also true that it is irresponsible simply to raise the debt ceiling every time we need it? If we don’t take advantage of the circumstance we are in to force ourselves to do the things that need to be done, we are irresponsible….

Our primary responsibility as American citizens, as an American citizen, not just as a U.S. Senator but all of us as American citizens–we have a responsibility to do two things for the future of our country: protect and preserve the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and make sure the American dream is alive and well so future Americans have the chance to pursue their dreams in this country.

To continue to borrow money to put our country’s fiscal condition in jeopardy once again means we will have failed that responsibility because the spending and borrowing of money inhibits our personal liberties and freedoms and reduces economic opportunity, the American dream for all Americans.

I will vote no. 

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ):

What we are doing here is getting rid of or extending the budget caps on the budget control agreement, spending about $80 billion more than we would have otherwise.

We have told ourselves that we have offset this spending. Here is my concern. It is clear that we haven’t. Some of the so-called offsets are simple budget gimmicks. 

Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL):

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong opposition to the 2-year budget agreement before the Senate. This so-called budget deal was negotiated at the last minute. It is now being rushed through Congress with inadequate time for proper scrutiny. While the devil is typically in the details when Congress negotiates these eleventh-hour deals, the flaws in this agreement are evident from merely taking a glance at what is in it.

This budget agreement would increase the current Budget Control Act spending caps, which we enacted in 2011 in an effort to restrain Washington spending, by approximately $80 billion or more over the next 2 years. On top of raising the caps by $80 billion or more, this deal also adds $32 billion in additional spending totals. That is $112 billion in new spending over the next 2 years–yes, $112 billion in new spending over the next 2 years.

Not only would this agreement allow for increased spending, it would also raise the debt ceiling through March of 2017–yes, through March of 2017–where we can borrow more money, adding an estimated $1.5 trillion of borrowing.

President Obama has continually called for more government spending and a blank check, to raise our Nation’s debt limit with no corresponding reforms or spending cuts. The deal before us today represents a victory for President Obama and his liberal allies, not for the American people. As long as Washington continues to spend far beyond its means and remain on the same unsustainable track, our economy will suffer.

While I believe we should safeguard the full faith and credit of the United States, I also believe we should do so in a manner that puts our Nation on a more responsible fiscal path. We cannot–I repeat, we cannot continue to raise the debt limit without taking responsible steps to tackle the underlying problems facing our Nation: wasteful government spending.

Taking on more debt to facilitate more government spending is not the answer and is simply unacceptable.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, for many months I have been speaking about what I call the Washington cartel. The Washington cartel consists of career politicians in both parties who get in bed with lobbyists and special interests in Washington and grow and grow and grow government. I believe the Washington cartel is the source of the volcanic frustration Americans face across this country, and it is difficult to find a better illustration of the Washington cartel than the charade we are engaged in this evening. This deal we are here to vote on is both shockingly bad on the merits and it is also a manifestation of the bipartisan corruption that suffuses Washington, DC.

What are the terms of this budget deal? Well, in short, what the House of Representatives has passed, and what the Senate is expected to pass shortly, is a bill that adds $85 billion in spending increases–$85 billion to our national debt, $85 billion to your children and my children that they are somehow expected to pay. I don’t know about your kids, but my girls don’t have $85 billion lying around in their rooms….

Not only is this bill spending us deeper and deeper into a hole, it is chock-full of gimmicks. These are gimmicks that everyone writing them knew were there.

Bill Summary: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 had two major functions: Title I — Provide new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 and Title IX — remove the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017.H.R. 1314 also made adjustments to several other programs (e.g., Social Security, Obamacare, Agriculture, and Strategic Petroleum Reserves), some to provide offsets with disputed fiscal impact.

History of H.R. 1314:  It has become common for congressional leaders to use legislative “tricks” to overcome parliamentary obstacles to considering major legislation. These “tricks,” which involve amending legislation already passed in one chamber for a completely different purpose, make it difficult for the casual public to follow what is going on.

H.R. 1314 was passed in April by voice vote as the “Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act.” The Senate then amended the Act as the “Trade Act of 2015” and sent it back to the House. Finally, H.R. 1314, through further House Amendment, became the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015” and as such was agreed to by the House and Senate and sent to the president.

Freedom First Society Analysis: This backroom budget deal gives President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. It drew the unanimous support of Senate Democrats and only a minority (18 to 35) of Republicans.

The “budget deal” raises the budget caps, so that House and Senate appropriators will develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.   Some legislators criticized budget gimmicks with “offsets” designed to allow supporters to claim that spending was not being increased.

The “budget deal” also temporarily removes the ceiling for the National Debt again without any effort to reduce the deficit. Proponents and media stories are heralding passage as a great accomplishment to avoid a “disastrous” default on servicing our $18 trillion in debt.

The raise-the-debt ceiling or default scenario presents Americans with false alternatives.   There is another alternative. Either the GOP-controlled House or the GOP-controlled Senate, with sufficient backbone, could use the power of the purse to trim unconstitutional spending and, in short order, turn deficits into surpluses.

The Real Problem

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutional role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find any representative or senator who is demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. They argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

A good time to have addressed the looming debt-ceiling problem was during the appropriations process leading up to FY 2016, which began October 1. Even the Continuing Resolution that provided appropriations thru December 11 could have included major cuts in spending.

At those times, Congress would have had good leverage to impose fiscal restraint. However, Congress could have attacked the spending problem at any time since or even included spending cuts within a more limited raise of the debt ceiling to avoid a last minute default.

Some insightful remarks from the Senate debate (Congressional Record):

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama):

Mr. President, the budget passage that will soon be before us essentially does a number of things. One of the more basic is that it spends a lot more money than the current law allows, and it is done in a way that the new Speaker of the House said “stinks” a day or so ago.

Once again a massive deal is crafted behind closed doors and is being rushed through Congress under the threat of panic. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 serves as a reminder that the most important and controversial legislation is still being drafted in secret with little or no input from the Members of this Chamber. We have been cut out of the process. No amendments will be allowed to this massive package, and the cloture vote will be filed immediately after the bill is placed on the floor in order to force a vote, limiting the debate to the shortest possible time under the rules of the Senate. Those who question, object, and want more time, are accused of wanting to shut down the government and disrupt the machinery of the government. They say that President Obama will accuse us of shutting down the government. They say that we should cower under our debt at this great charge he might make against us. As if insisting that we have a right to read and study a bill of this magnitude is out of order….

At its core, this deal with President Obama provides what the President has demanded throughout.

First, it lifts the Federal spending caps for 2 years, including a $40 billion increase in spending on the Federal bureaucracy. A “yes” vote affirms that this spending level–the new high spending level–is correct and that we need to spend this much money.

Second, it erases the current debt limit we have that stops spending or borrowing money above a certain amount. It erases that debt limit until March of 2017, allowing for approximately $1.5 trillion more to be added to our debt of $18.4 trillion, and it could be more than that.

The text states that at that date the debt ceiling shall be raised to whatever level of public debt is at that time. Unlike in the past, when we had a debt ceiling, it was a dollar amount, and we would raise it and approve a certain dollar amount. Suspending this limit is a very unwise process. It was done last time and should not be done in the future–raise it to a date in the future and indicate, in effect, that as much debt as Congress or the President wants to add in that time is approved. We don’t even know the amount. This is a covert and clever way of raising the debt ceiling without having to engage in a real discussion of Washington’s runaway spending problem. It ensures that no further serious conversation about our debt course or any corresponding action to alter it will take place.

Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas):

In my mind, one of the most important issues that we face in this country today is the fiscal condition of our country. The amount of debt that we incur and the amount of debt that we continue to incur is a significant drag on our economy, on job creation, and, in reality, on the American dream.

It is an economic issue. At some point in time, if we don’t get our fiscal house in order, we will pay a significant price. We can either deal with this issue in a gradual, incremental way, in which we set ourselves on a path to right, or we can wait for the crisis to occur, which I have no doubt will happen.

While it is often said that this is an economic issue, and fiscal issues matter to the country, I also would point out that this is not just an economic issue. It is a moral issue. The borrowing of money to pay for services and goods that the government provides the American people is a selfish circumstance in which we take the so-called benefits of government programs today and expect future generations of Americans to pay for those benefits. It is wrong economically for us to continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility, but it is also morally wrong to expect someone else to pay for the so-called benefits we receive today….

Here is the point I want to make. If we give up the leverage, the opportunity that this issue presents to us as Members of Congress, to force us to do things that we apparently don’t have the will, the courage, the political desire to do, how do we ever get it done? Again, I guess there will be editorialists–certainly across the country and perhaps a few in Kansas–who will say that we need to raise the debt ceiling because it is irresponsible not to. Isn’t it also true that it is irresponsible simply to raise the debt ceiling every time we need it? If we don’t take advantage of the circumstance we are in to force ourselves to do the things that need to be done, we are irresponsible….

Our primary responsibility as American citizens, as an American citizen, not just as a U.S. Senator but all of us as American citizens–we have a responsibility to do two things for the future of our country: protect and preserve the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and make sure the American dream is alive and well so future Americans have the chance to pursue their dreams in this country.

To continue to borrow money to put our country’s fiscal condition in jeopardy once again means we will have failed that responsibility because the spending and borrowing of money inhibits our personal liberties and freedoms and reduces economic opportunity, the American dream for all Americans.

I will vote no. 

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ):

What we are doing here is getting rid of or extending the budget caps on the budget control agreement, spending about $80 billion more than we would have otherwise.

We have told ourselves that we have offset this spending. Here is my concern. It is clear that we haven’t. Some of the so-called offsets are simple budget gimmicks. 

Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL):

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong opposition to the 2-year budget agreement before the Senate. This so-called budget deal was negotiated at the last minute. It is now being rushed through Congress with inadequate time for proper scrutiny. While the devil is typically in the details when Congress negotiates these eleventh-hour deals, the flaws in this agreement are evident from merely taking a glance at what is in it.

This budget agreement would increase the current Budget Control Act spending caps, which we enacted in 2011 in an effort to restrain Washington spending, by approximately $80 billion or more over the next 2 years. On top of raising the caps by $80 billion or more, this deal also adds $32 billion in additional spending totals. That is $112 billion in new spending over the next 2 years–yes, $112 billion in new spending over the next 2 years.

Not only would this agreement allow for increased spending, it would also raise the debt ceiling through March of 2017–yes, through March of 2017–where we can borrow more money, adding an estimated $1.5 trillion of borrowing.

President Obama has continually called for more government spending and a blank check, to raise our Nation’s debt limit with no corresponding reforms or spending cuts. The deal before us today represents a victory for President Obama and his liberal allies, not for the American people. As long as Washington continues to spend far beyond its means and remain on the same unsustainable track, our economy will suffer.

While I believe we should safeguard the full faith and credit of the United States, I also believe we should do so in a manner that puts our Nation on a more responsible fiscal path. We cannot–I repeat, we cannot continue to raise the debt limit without taking responsible steps to tackle the underlying problems facing our Nation: wasteful government spending.

Taking on more debt to facilitate more government spending is not the answer and is simply unacceptable.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, for many months I have been speaking about what I call the Washington cartel. The Washington cartel consists of career politicians in both parties who get in bed with lobbyists and special interests in Washington and grow and grow and grow government. I believe the Washington cartel is the source of the volcanic frustration Americans face across this country, and it is difficult to find a better illustration of the Washington cartel than the charade we are engaged in this evening. This deal we are here to vote on is both shockingly bad on the merits and it is also a manifestation of the bipartisan corruption that suffuses Washington, DC.

What are the terms of this budget deal? Well, in short, what the House of Representatives has passed, and what the Senate is expected to pass shortly, is a bill that adds $85 billion in spending increases–$85 billion to our national debt, $85 billion to your children and my children that they are somehow expected to pay. I don’t know about your kids, but my girls don’t have $85 billion lying around in their rooms….

Not only is this bill spending us deeper and deeper into a hole, it is chock-full of gimmicks. These are gimmicks that everyone writing them knew were there.

Bill Summary: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 had two major functions: Title I — Provide new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 and Title IX — remove the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017.H.R. 1314 also made adjustments to several other programs (e.g., Social Security, Obamacare, Agriculture, and Strategic Petroleum Reserves), some to provide offsets with disputed fiscal impact.

History of H.R. 1314. It has become common for congressional leaders to use legislative “tricks” to overcome parliamentary obstacles to considering major legislation. These “tricks,” which involve amending legislation already passed in one chamber for a completely different purpose, make it difficult for the casual public to follow what is going on.

H.R. 1314 was passed in April by voice vote as the “Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act.” The Senate then amended the Act as the “Trade Act of 2015” and sent it back to the House. Finally, H.R. 1314, through further House Amendment, became the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015” and as such was agreed to by the House and Senate and sent to the president.

Freedom First Society Analysis: This backroom budget deal gives President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. It drew the unanimous support of House and Senate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Only a minority of Republicans in both chambers supported it.

The “budget deal” raises the budget caps, so that House and Senate appropriators will develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.   Some legislators criticized budget gimmicks with “offsets” designed to allow supporters to claim that spending was not being increased.

The “budget deal” also temporarily removes the ceiling for the National Debt again without any effort to reduce the deficit. Proponents and media stories are heralding passage as a great accomplishment to avoid a “disastrous” default on servicing our $18 trillion in debt.

The raise-the-debt ceiling or default scenario presents Americans with false alternatives.   There is another alternative. Either the GOP-controlled House or the GOP-controlled Senate, with sufficient backbone, could use the power of the purse to trim unconstitutional spending and, in short order, turn deficits into surpluses.

Some legislators had the backbone to stand against deal. South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford was one of the few opponents allowed time to speak against the agreement. Even though he was generous to his fellow leaders who advanced the agreement, describing them as being “caught between a rock and a hard place,” his assessment provided needed perspective:

[W]e are still left at the end of the day with a $1.5 trillion problem that has grown on top of an $18 trillion problem; and I, therefore, believe that the simple notion is the key to getting out of a hole is to quit digging. Fundamentally, I believe that this bill does more digging than not….

[I]t does remove the caps. As draconian as they are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity. That, I think, has a lot to do with the fiscal restraint that we have seen on domestic discretionary spending.

And finally, as my colleague from California just pointed out, there is borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul….

Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a “no.”

The Real Problem

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutional role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find any representative or senator who is demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. They argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

A good time to have addressed the looming debt-ceiling problem was during the appropriations process leading up to FY 2016, which began October 1. Even the Continuing Resolution that provided appropriations thru December 11 could have included major cuts in spending.

At those times, Congress would have had good leverage to impose fiscal restraint. However, Congress could have attacked the spending problem at any time since or even included spending cuts within a more limited raise of the debt ceiling to avoid a last minute default.

Bill Summary: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 had two major functions: Title I — Provide new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 and Title IX — remove the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017.H.R. 1314 also made adjustments to several other programs (e.g., Social Security, Obamacare, Agriculture, and Strategic Petroleum Reserves), some to provide offsets with disputed fiscal impact.

History of H.R. 1314. It has become common for congressional leaders to use legislative “tricks” to overcome parliamentary obstacles to considering major legislation. These “tricks,” which involve amending legislation already passed in one chamber for a completely different purpose, make it difficult for the casual public to follow what is going on.

H.R. 1314 was passed in April by voice vote as the “Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act.” The Senate then amended the Act as the “Trade Act of 2015” and sent it back to the House. Finally, H.R. 1314, through further House Amendment, became the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015” and as such was agreed to by the House and Senate and sent to the president.

Freedom First Society Analysis: This backroom budget deal gives President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. It drew the unanimous support of House and Senate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Only a minority of Republicans in both chambers supported it.

The “budget deal” raises the budget caps, so that House and Senate appropriators will develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.   Some legislators criticized budget gimmicks with “offsets” designed to allow supporters to claim that spending was not being increased.

The “budget deal” also temporarily removes the ceiling for the National Debt again without any effort to reduce the deficit. Proponents and media stories are heralding passage as a great accomplishment to avoid a “disastrous” default on servicing our $18 trillion in debt.

The raise-the-debt ceiling or default scenario presents Americans with false alternatives.   There is another alternative. Either the GOP-controlled House or the GOP-controlled Senate, with sufficient backbone, could use the power of the purse to trim unconstitutional spending and, in short order, turn deficits into surpluses.

Some legislators had the backbone to stand against deal. South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford was one of the few opponents allowed time to speak against the agreement. Even though he was generous to his fellow leaders who advanced the agreement, describing them as being “caught between a rock and a hard place,” his assessment provided needed perspective:

[W]e are still left at the end of the day with a $1.5 trillion problem that has grown on top of an $18 trillion problem; and I, therefore, believe that the simple notion is the key to getting out of a hole is to quit digging. Fundamentally, I believe that this bill does more digging than not….

[I]t does remove the caps. As draconian as they are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity. That, I think, has a lot to do with the fiscal restraint that we have seen on domestic discretionary spending.

And finally, as my colleague from California just pointed out, there is borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul….

Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a “no.”

The Real Problem

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutional role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find any representative or senator who is demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. They argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

A good time to have addressed the looming debt-ceiling problem was during the appropriations process leading up to FY 2016, which began October 1. Even the Continuing Resolution that provided appropriations thru December 11 could have included major cuts in spending.

At those times, Congress would have had good leverage to impose fiscal restraint. However, Congress could have attacked the spending problem at any time since or even included spending cuts within a more limited raise of the debt ceiling to avoid a last minute default.

From the Cong. Research Service Summary: Highlights: The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 provides FY2016 appropriations for the civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project; the Department of Energy (DOE); and several independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission.

The bill increases overall FY2016 Energy and Water Development funding above FY2015 levels and includes increases for DOE and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation….

The bill authorizes DOE to conduct a pilot program with private sector partners to provide interim storage for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. [Emphasis added.[

Freedom First Society Analysis: Undoubtedly, some of the programs funded by this measure are proper. However, a common practice with legislation that continues progressively larger unconstitutional government is to mix the good with the bad. This tactic provides weak politicians with the “excuse” for voting for the entire package.

Informed constituents should demand that their representatives vote “no” on legislation that makes no serious effort to phase out and eliminate unconstitutional spending.

Unfortunately, in the floor “debate” over this appropriations measure we could find no mention that some of the programs or even most of a department, such as the Department of Energy, were unconstitutional.

As a candidate for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan called for the abolition of Jimmy Carter’s Department of Energy (the DOE), but there has been little serious effort to do so, to the detriment of our nation. In general most of what the DOE does is not only unconstitutional, but counterproductive — acting to keep energy scarce and expensive. (The DOE did absorb some constitutional defense-related functions re our nuclear stockpile, making it a more difficult target.)

In the debates, we saw no eagerness to expose the federal government’s war on energy, supported by the Insiders and their environmentalist offspring. That war has prevented and continues to prevent the U.S. from enjoying plentiful, inexpensive energy resources and the tremendous boost to the economy that would entail, while empowering the government to ration and act as a gatekeeper to those resources.

Instead, the partisan floor debate over H.R. 2028 was respectful and polite. Even the Democratic opponents generally praised the bill, objecting mainly to the limits imposed by the sequester in the 2011 Budget Control Act on other appropriations measures (see below).   Those GOP who were unhappy with the measure did not have a chance to speak until their proposed amendments were debated.

Unauthorized Appropriations

Perhaps the most instructive remarks were made by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA). McClintock offered an amendment to freeze appropriations in this measure at FY 2015 levels (not roll back) for programs that have not been reauthorized:

Mr. Chairman, this amendment continues the effort to stop or, at least in this case, to freeze appropriations that are made for agencies whose legal authorizations lapsed many years and even decades ago.

Ever since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending any money for purposes unauthorized by current law; yet today, about one-third of our discretionary spending is for unauthorized programs.

Why is that? Well, it is because the rule against unauthorized spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the resolutions that bring these bills to the floor.

The bill before us today contains $25 billion in unauthorized spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing committees since as far back as 1980, Jimmy Carter’s last year in office….

Rather than review our spending decisions and making tough choices about spending priorities, Congress simply rubberstamps these programs out of habit, year after year. It is no wonder we are so deeply in debt with so little to show for it.

My amendment does not defund these unauthorized programs, as the House rules require. It simply freezes spending on them at last year’s level.

The cuts contained in this amendment total $129 million, or about thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total spending in this bill.

This House has a responsibility to examine these programs, reauthorize the ones that work, and modify or end the ones that don’t. It has a responsibility, but it has no incentive, as long as we keep funding them and, worse, increasing the funding that these programs receive.

In a sense, this is a token. It is a symbol. Reducing this bill by thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent will have no appreciable effect on the $35.5 million in this appropriation or the $3.8 trillion the Federal Government plans to spend this year, but I hope that it will send a subtle but clear message that the Members of this House insist that the Congress reassert its constitutional responsibility to authorize Federal spending and to enforce its own rules that prohibit spending blindly on unauthorized programs.

A majority of GOP representatives (126 to 113) supported this symbolic protest. But the 126 supporters were overwhelmed by their 113 colleagues combined with unanimous Democratic opposition. And so the McClintock amendment failed, 126 to 295.

It was disappointing to see Representative McClintock nevertheless support the final measure. His action confirms that our representatives must have the informed support of a sizeable number of constituents if we want most of them to take even tougher stands that are not merely “token” or “symbolic.”

The Bill’s Sponsor

Representative Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chaired the appropriations subcommittee that produced the bill, introduced it as follows:

The bill provides $35.4 billion for the activities of the Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $1.2 billion increase from last year’s funding level, and $633 million below the request.

This is a responsible bill that recognizes the importance of investing in our Nation’s infrastructure and national defense. As we do each year, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle. [A red flag!]

Simpson made no comment re constitutional limitations, suggesting instead that he was proud of his work to compromise with socialists. But, as we shall see, that was to be of no avail.

Democrat Strategy

H.R. 2088 was the second of 12 FY2016 appropriations bills brought to a floor vote in the House. Following the first such bill, H.R. 2029 Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies, Washington’s Roll Call wrote:

House Democratic leaders succeeded in holding back all but 19 of their members on the first appropriations vote of the season without even formally whipping against the Republican bill.

It’s a sign the Democratic caucus is putting a plan in motion to try to stymie GOP appropriations bills one by one, until Republicans reach a breaking point and agree to reconsider the current sequester-level spending caps. — Roll Call (4-30-15): “One Down, 11 to Go: GOP’s Uncertain Appropriations Season.”

Ms. Kaptur (D-Ohio) served as the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee with Mr. Simpson. She controlled the Democrat side of the debate on H.R. 2088:

Our bill’s priority is to strengthen our Nation’s energy foundation. This bill does responsibly invest in that effort, as well as in our nuclear security as well as our water infrastructure. But I must ask: At what cost does our bill do this? Our bill is among the first two to be considered. There are 10 bills that will follow, and, frankly, they were raided to pay for ours.

This Republican budget will mean that additional funding for this bill—1 of 12 appropriation bills on which Congress must act—comes at the expense of other vital national needs that will be shortchanged as subsequent appropriation bills are brought forward; in total, 12 of them….

Nuclear nonproliferation and environmental cleanup efforts in our bill will make our world safer. But on America’s streets, police and fire departments will remain understaffed, insufficiently trained, and underequipped because the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill is shorted…. [Note: The Constitution does not give the federal government any responsibility for police and fire departments.]

Though this Energy and Water bill is respectable, it is only one oar in the water pushing our ship of state forward. We can’t reach our destination without the other 11 oars in the water too. For that reason, I urge my colleagues, as we move forward, to consider a “no” vote on this measure in hopes that a message will be sent strongly. [Emphasis added.]

Because most Democrats chose to follow their party leadership and vote “no” (right vote, wrong reason) in order to lobby for more unconstitutional spending, we score only the Republicans on this measure.

The “Renewable” Energy Scam

Earlier, Ms. Kaptur propounded a well rehearsed myth supporting the Insider focus on soft energy sources and conservation:

Thirty-seven years ago, President Jimmy Carter, after the first Arab oil embargo, as gasoline prices exploded and the U.S. fell into deep, deep recession, championed the creation of a U.S. Department of Energy. He equated the struggle for America’s energy independence as the moral equivalent of war, and he was right. He set a goal to steer the United States toward energy independence by 1985.

Today, America still struggles to meet that challenge set out nearly four decades ago: reducing our imported energy dependence, curbing our voracious appetite for foreign oil, and growing a diverse domestic energy portfolio that invests in a self-reliant America and the job creation here at home that goes with it.

Containing our ballooning consumption topped President Carter’s agenda. But while he successfully reduced consumption during his Presidency, his successors lost focus. Demand for gasoline increased by 40 percent in the 25 years after he left office, a troubling reality….

President Carter also envisioned a new energy horizon for our Nation, including renewable energy and conservation. Solar electric capacity currently operating in our country is enough to power more than 3.5 million homes, on average.” [Emphasis added.]

Author Steve Milloy, in his 2009 blockbuster, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, very credibly exposed these myths and the real agenda driving them. In our review (see our complete review of Milloy’s book) we stated:

The Green War on Energy

A primary green objective is to create scarcities, which then provide the pretext for government regulation and rationing. And what better place to bring a modern industrial nation to its knees than to starve it of energy?

In the late sixties and early seventies, the anti-nuclear movement, in cooperation with revolutionaries in government, largely killed the use of this American technology on American soil.

The current tactic to achieve energy scarcity, promoted by the Obama administration, is to emphasize the development of ‘renewable’ energy, while attaching burdensome strings to the construction of power plants and the development of resources that can realistically supply our immediate energy needs, such as oil from shale. Colorado, as Milloy points out, is the Saudia Arabia of shale oil. Yet this resource has for years been off limits to development.

Green Hell provides a much-needed dose of reality regarding promises that a modern society can be run anytime soon on the alternative sources being touted, and Milloy points out the enormous expense in trying.

Moreover, when push comes to shove, as Milloy shows, green leaders will oppose even their “renewable” sources where these sources look like they might offer serious help, since the real but not advertised objective is no energy. The renewable energy campaign is really just a campaign to create shortages (at immense expense) that government can ration.

Myths re Nuclear Waste

The late Petr Beckman in his 1979 booklet “The Non-Problem of Nuclear Wastes,” correctly observed:

2. It is utterly untrue that no method of waste disposal is known;
3. The paramount issue that is being covered up is a simple comparison: Is nuclear waste disposal a significant advantage in safety, public health, and environmental impact over wastes of fossil-fired power plants … or not?
4. Much of the answer to the question above is contained in two simple statistics: For the same power, nuclear wastes are some 3.5 million times smaller in volume; and in duration of their toxicity, the advantage ranges from a few percent to infinity.

Yet by perpetuating the myth of a nuclear waste problem, the federal government, with convenient pressure from the Insider-financed environmental lobby, has been able to stifle the use of U.S.-pioneered nuclear technology on American soil. And, of course, big-spenders love a problem to manage.

Unfortunately, we are getting no leadership from any of our elected politicians to expose these ruses.

Again, we do not score the Democrats on this one, as most undoubtedly voted the right way (No) for the wrong reason — they wanted to spend more.

Bill Summary: This appropriations measure essentially allows spending for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2015 to continue at the same rate as last year’s spending until December 11. (As provided in Public Law 113-235 or, for the Department of Homeland Security, 114-4.)This Continuing Resolution (CR) did make a few changes from last year’s appropriations, described by House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers as “limited in scope and noncontroversial.” Spending in most categories was also reduced across the board less than a quarter of one percent (0.2108 percent) as required by the sequester caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Analysis: As the regular appropriations process is supposed to work, 12 subcommittees report out individual appropriations bills that focus on particular functions of the federal government, such as defense or agriculture. That work was completed this year in both the House and the Senate. In the House, a half-dozen came up for a floor vote. In the Senate none.

When Fiscal Year 2015 came to and end, rather than insisting that the Senate (and President) deal with these 12, the GOP leadership in both the House and Senate capitulated, as has been the pattern in recent years, and agreed to support a continuing resolution (CR).

With this CR, the Senate made no effort to roll back government spending. The CR authorized business as usual for all departments for another 2 ½ months.

The Establishment media and many politicians from both parties misleadingly cast this capitulation to liberal demands as the only away to avoid an unconscionable government shutdown. Although some GOP senators had wanted the CR to defund Planned Parenthood, the President has threatened to veto any measure that eliminated such funding.

Most media reports failed to create any understanding of how Congress could use its power of the purse to overcome liberal threats and rein in out-of-control spending. However, a surprising glimpse into sound strategy could be found in a September 10th Roll Call report:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Congress has a duty to decide how money should be spent and can’t see how Obama would be able to say Republicans were shutting down the government when they were offering to fund all of it except for Planned Parenthood.

“There is no reason whatsoever we should fund Planned Parenthood,” he said. “If you acquiesce and acknowledge the president is correct then Congress has no power whatsoever over the purse…. I just don’t see how that’s a losing issue. I think the president would look awful. He’s going to veto the Defense bill? He’s going to veto all these other bills? …We don’t need to be hiding under the table.”

Please see our full discussion of the proper course for outgunned, but responsible congressmen in “The Power of the Purse.”

Despite strong opposition within GOP ranks, the Senate and House GOP leadership chose to advance a “clean” CR that continued all of the “dirty” spending, as demanded by the Obama administration. All of the voting Democrats in both chambers supported it, but a significant minority (20) of GOP senators opposed it. In the House, which is more accountable to the people, a majority (151) of GOP representatives opposed the CR as opposed to only (91) who embraced it.

During the Senate debate, two opposing senators (Rand Paul and Ted Cruz) made quite illuminating observations that bolstered our contention in “The Power of the Purse.”

While we generally agreed with Senator Paul’s comments during the Senate debate, we were extremely disappointed with what he did not say. Over and over he spoke of a problem with “waste,” “duplication,” “nonsense,” and spending for “bad things.” These are politically safe targets, but they are only a small part of the spending problem.

The more politically difficult and significant targets are the unconstitutional federal programs and departments established during decades of invented crises and propaganda campaigns. The sad truth is that most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional! And unless Congress is forced to obey the strict limits of the Constitution, federal spending cannot be controlled. That is what Senator Paul refused to say.

Certainly, it requires much greater backbone (usually supported by an informed constituency) to challenge such destructive unconstitutional inroads as the Department of Education and President Johnson’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). But targeting the small stuff won’t cut it. As Napoleon Bonaparte once stated, “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” What America needs is leadership to undo the serious “errors” of the past.

Senator Rand Paul (September 29 on floor of Senate, from the Congressional Record):

         “What we have here in Congress is a failure to legislate, a failure to exert congressional authority. What we have here is a failure to use our leverage. What we have here is a failure to use the power of the purse….

         “What is a continuing resolution? It is a continuation of the deficit spending of the past. It is a continuation of the waste. It is a continuation of the duplication. What is a continuing resolution? …

         “It is an abdication of congressional authority. It is an abdication of congressional power.

        “Let’s at least be honest. With a continuing resolution, no waste will be cut, no spending will be cut, no regulations will be stopped, and the debt will continue to mount.

         “We are told that we cannot win, that we need 60 votes to defund anything, but perhaps there is an alternate future where courage steps up and saves the day.

         “All spending is set to expire automatically. This is the perfect time to turn the tables, to tell the other side that they will need 60 votes to affirmatively spend any money. See, it doesn’t have to be 60 votes to stop things. All spending will expire, and only those programs for which we can get 60 votes should go forward. [Emphasis added.]

        “What would that mean? That would mean an elimination of waste, an elimination of duplication, an elimination of bad things that we spend money on.

         “If we had the courage, we could use the Senate’s supermajority rules to stop wasteful spending. If we had the courage, we could force the other side to come up with 60 votes to fund things like Planned Parenthood. The budget is loaded with nonsense and waste.… [Emphasis added.]

         “We should attach to all 12 individual spending bills–not glommed together–we should attach hundreds of instructions, thousands of instructions. Now, some of the media have said: Well, those would be riders on appropriations bills. Exactly. That is the power of the purse. If you object to the President writing regulations without our authority, Congress should defund the regulations….

         “Would we win all of these battles? Do we have the power to win every battle and defund everything we want? No. But do you know what we start out with? Our negotiating position right now is, we start out with defunding nothing….

       “Now, several will report on this speech and say: Oh, he wants to shut down government. No, I don’t. I just want to exert the power of the purse, and that means spending must expire. I am all for renewing the spending, but let’s renew only the spending that makes sense. We have the power of the purse if we choose to exert it….

        “The way we are supposed to spend money in Congress is 12 individual appropriations bills. They have passed out of committee. Why aren’t they presented on the floor? The Democrats have filibustered the only one presented. Let’s present every one of them, and let the public know–let everyone in America know–that it is Democrats filibustering the spending bills. It is Democrats who desire to shut down government….

        “When is the last time we did it in the appropriate fashion? When is the last time Congress passed each of the individual appropriations bills with instructions on how to spend the money? It was 2005, a decade ago. It has been a decade. In the last decade we have added nearly $10 trillion in new debt. It is time to take a stand.”

******

Freedom First Society: While we generally agreed with what Senator Cruz stated during the Senate debate, he, too, failed to champion the strict limits the Constitution imposes on federal activity. And in blaming the growth of government on the political influence of corporations and K-street lobbyists, he grossly understates what is driving the growth of federal power.

However, we do find it very refreshing for Senator Cruz to affirm that so many of the votes scheduled in Congress are nothing more than show votes (on measures that everyone knows will go nowhere). They serve little more than to support campaigning. We refuse to score Congress on such “posturing” votes.

Senator Ted Cruz (September 29 on floor of Senate):

         “In today’s Washington, there are three kinds of votes. No. 1, there are show votes–votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters, where the outcome is foreordained, where most Republicans will vote one way and most Democrats will vote the other. Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both Houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose.

         “We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?

         “We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. Indeed, it did not.

         “The second kind of vote is a vote that simply grows government, dramatically expands spending, and expands corporate welfare. Those votes pass because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government and in particular handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh boy. If you have the lobbyists on K Street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 in this Chamber because Republican leadership loves it and Democrats are always willing to grow government.

         “Then there is the third kind of vote–votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side–the Democratic Party–is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this Chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories: either a continuing resolution, an omnibus appropriations bill, or a debt ceiling increase. All of those three are deemed must-pass votes. If you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But, as I mentioned before, you have one side who has preemptively surrendered.

         “Republican leadership has said they will never ever shut down the government, and suddenly President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle: He simply has to utter the word “shutdown” and Republican leadership runs to the hills…

         “If we don’t stop what we are doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they will not be able to spend in the future for the priorities of the future–for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts.”

Bill Summary: This appropriations measure essentially allows spending for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2015 to continue at the same rate as last year’s spending until December 11. (As provided in Public Law 113-235 or, for the Department of Homeland Security, 114-4.)This Continuing Resolution (CR) did make a few changes from last year’s appropriations, described by House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers as “limited in scope and noncontroversial.” Spending in most categories was also reduced across the board less than a quarter of one percent (0.2108 percent) as required by the sequester caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Analysis: As the regular appropriations process is supposed to work, 12 subcommittees report out individual appropriations bills that focus on particular functions of the federal government, such as defense or agriculture. That work was completed this year in both the House and the Senate. In the House, a half-dozen came up for a floor vote. In the Senate none.

When Fiscal Year 2015 came to and end, rather than insisting that the Senate (and President) deal with these 12, the GOP leadership in both the House and Senate capitulated, as has been the pattern in recent years, and agreed to support a continuing resolution (CR).

With this CR, the Senate made no effort to roll back government spending. The CR authorized business as usual for all departments for another 2 ½ months.

The Establishment media and many politicians from both parties misleadingly cast this capitulation to liberal demands as the only away to avoid an unconscionable government shutdown. Although some GOP senators had wanted the CR to defund Planned Parenthood, the President has threatened to veto any measure that eliminated such funding.

Most media reports failed to create any understanding of how Congress could use its power of the purse to overcome liberal threats and rein in out-of-control spending. However, a surprising glimpse into sound strategy could be found in a September 10th Roll Call report:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Congress has a duty to decide how money should be spent and can’t see how Obama would be able to say Republicans were shutting down the government when they were offering to fund all of it except for Planned Parenthood.

“There is no reason whatsoever we should fund Planned Parenthood,” he said. “If you acquiesce and acknowledge the president is correct then Congress has no power whatsoever over the purse…. I just don’t see how that’s a losing issue. I think the president would look awful. He’s going to veto the Defense bill? He’s going to veto all these other bills? …We don’t need to be hiding under the table.”

Please see our full discussion of the proper course for outgunned, but responsible congressmen in “The Power of the Purse.”

Despite strong opposition within GOP ranks, the Senate and House GOP leadership chose to advance a “clean” CR that continued all of the “dirty” spending, as demanded by the Obama administration. All of the voting Democrats in both chambers supported it, but a significant minority (20) of GOP senators opposed it. In the House, which is more accountable to the people, a majority (151) of GOP representatives opposed the CR as opposed to only (91) who embraced it.

During the Senate debate, two opposing senators (Rand Paul and Ted Cruz) made quite illuminating observations that bolstered our contention in “The Power of the Purse.”

While we generally agreed with Senator Paul’s comments during the Senate debate, we were extremely disappointed with what he did not say. Over and over he spoke of a problem with “waste,” “duplication,” “nonsense,” and spending for “bad things.” These are politically safe targets, but they are only a small part of the spending problem.

The more politically difficult and significant targets are the unconstitutional federal programs and departments established during decades of invented crises and propaganda campaigns. The sad truth is that most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional! And unless Congress is forced to obey the strict limits of the Constitution, federal spending cannot be controlled. That is what Senator Paul refused to say.

Certainly, it requires much greater backbone (usually supported by an informed constituency) to challenge such destructive unconstitutional inroads as the Department of Education and President Johnson’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). But targeting the small stuff won’t cut it. As Napoleon Bonaparte once stated, “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” What America needs is leadership to undo the serious “errors” of the past.

Senator Rand Paul (September 29 on floor of Senate, from the Congressional Record):

         “What we have here in Congress is a failure to legislate, a failure to exert congressional authority. What we have here is a failure to use our leverage. What we have here is a failure to use the power of the purse….

         “What is a continuing resolution? It is a continuation of the deficit spending of the past. It is a continuation of the waste. It is a continuation of the duplication. What is a continuing resolution? …

         “It is an abdication of congressional authority. It is an abdication of congressional power.

        “Let’s at least be honest. With a continuing resolution, no waste will be cut, no spending will be cut, no regulations will be stopped, and the debt will continue to mount.

         “We are told that we cannot win, that we need 60 votes to defund anything, but perhaps there is an alternate future where courage steps up and saves the day.

         “All spending is set to expire automatically. This is the perfect time to turn the tables, to tell the other side that they will need 60 votes to affirmatively spend any money. See, it doesn’t have to be 60 votes to stop things. All spending will expire, and only those programs for which we can get 60 votes should go forward. [Emphasis added.]

        “What would that mean? That would mean an elimination of waste, an elimination of duplication, an elimination of bad things that we spend money on.

         “If we had the courage, we could use the Senate’s supermajority rules to stop wasteful spending. If we had the courage, we could force the other side to come up with 60 votes to fund things like Planned Parenthood. The budget is loaded with nonsense and waste.… [Emphasis added.]

         “We should attach to all 12 individual spending bills–not glommed together–we should attach hundreds of instructions, thousands of instructions. Now, some of the media have said: Well, those would be riders on appropriations bills. Exactly. That is the power of the purse. If you object to the President writing regulations without our authority, Congress should defund the regulations….

         “Would we win all of these battles? Do we have the power to win every battle and defund everything we want? No. But do you know what we start out with? Our negotiating position right now is, we start out with defunding nothing….

       “Now, several will report on this speech and say: Oh, he wants to shut down government. No, I don’t. I just want to exert the power of the purse, and that means spending must expire. I am all for renewing the spending, but let’s renew only the spending that makes sense. We have the power of the purse if we choose to exert it….

        “The way we are supposed to spend money in Congress is 12 individual appropriations bills. They have passed out of committee. Why aren’t they presented on the floor? The Democrats have filibustered the only one presented. Let’s present every one of them, and let the public know–let everyone in America know–that it is Democrats filibustering the spending bills. It is Democrats who desire to shut down government….

        “When is the last time we did it in the appropriate fashion? When is the last time Congress passed each of the individual appropriations bills with instructions on how to spend the money? It was 2005, a decade ago. It has been a decade. In the last decade we have added nearly $10 trillion in new debt. It is time to take a stand.”

******

Freedom First Society: While we generally agreed with what Senator Cruz stated during the Senate debate, he, too, failed to champion the strict limits the Constitution imposes on federal activity. And in blaming the growth of government on the political influence of corporations and K-street lobbyists, he grossly understates what is driving the growth of federal power.

However, we do find it very refreshing for Senator Cruz to affirm that so many of the votes scheduled in Congress are nothing more than show votes (on measures that everyone knows will go nowhere). They serve little more than to support campaigning. We refuse to score Congress on such “posturing” votes.

Senator Ted Cruz (September 29 on floor of Senate):

         “In today’s Washington, there are three kinds of votes. No. 1, there are show votes–votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters, where the outcome is foreordained, where most Republicans will vote one way and most Democrats will vote the other. Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both Houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose.

         “We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?

         “We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. Indeed, it did not.

         “The second kind of vote is a vote that simply grows government, dramatically expands spending, and expands corporate welfare. Those votes pass because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government and in particular handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh boy. If you have the lobbyists on K Street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 in this Chamber because Republican leadership loves it and Democrats are always willing to grow government.

         “Then there is the third kind of vote–votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side–the Democratic Party–is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this Chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories: either a continuing resolution, an omnibus appropriations bill, or a debt ceiling increase. All of those three are deemed must-pass votes. If you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But, as I mentioned before, you have one side who has preemptively surrendered.

         “Republican leadership has said they will never ever shut down the government, and suddenly President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle: He simply has to utter the word “shutdown” and Republican leadership runs to the hills…

         “If we don’t stop what we are doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they will not be able to spend in the future for the priorities of the future–for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts.”

Bill Summary: This appropriations measure essentially allows spending for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2015 to continue at the same rate as last year’s spending until December 11. (As provided in Public Law 113-235 or, for the Department of Homeland Security, 114-4.)This Continuing Resolution (CR) did make a few changes from last year’s appropriations, described by House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers as “limited in scope and noncontroversial.” Spending in most categories was also reduced across the board less than a quarter of one percent (0.2108 percent) as required by the sequester caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Analysis: With this CR, the House made no effort to use its power of the purse to roll back government spending. The CR authorized business as usual for all departments for another 2 ½ months.

The Establishment media and many politicians from both parties misleadingly cast this capitulation to liberal demands as the only away to avoid an unconscionable government shutdown. Although some GOP representatives had wanted the CR to defund Planned Parenthood, the President has threatened to veto any measure that eliminated such funding.

Most media reports failed to create any understanding of how the House of Representatives could use its power of the purse to overcome liberal threats and rein in out-of-control spending. However, a surprising glimpse into sound strategy could be found in a September 10th Roll Call report:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Congress has a duty to decide how money should be spent and can’t see how Obama would be able to say Republicans were shutting down the government when they were offering to fund all of it except for Planned Parenthood.

“There is no reason whatsoever we should fund Planned Parenthood,” he said. “If you acquiesce and acknowledge the president is correct then Congress has no power whatsoever over the purse…. I just don’t see how that’s a losing issue. I think the president would look awful. He’s going to veto the Defense bill? He’s going to veto all these other bills? …We don’t need to be hiding under the table.”

Please see our full discussion of the proper course for outgunned, but responsible congressmen in “The Power of the Purse.”

Despite strong opposition within GOP ranks, the Senate and House GOP leadership chose to advance a “clean” CR that continued all of the “dirty” spending as demanded by the Obama administration. All of the voting Democrats supported it, but only a minority (91) of the GOP members embraced it, as against 151 who opposed it.

Because of such collusion, the 151 GOP Representatives opposing the measure were given no opportunity to speak during the floor debate. Instead, those Democrats and Republicans chosen to debate “debate” the CR assumed the CR was going forward and proceeded to tune up their partisan messaging for future fiscal battles and negotiations, while stressing the irresponsibility of a government shutdown.

The debate in the Senate, however, was not so limiting and two of the senators (Rand Paul and Ted Cruz) made quite illuminating observations that bolstered our contention in “The Power of the Purse.”

While we generally agreed with Senator Paul’s comments during the Senate debate, we were extremely disappointed with what he did not say. Over and over he spoke of a problem with “waste,” “duplication,” “nonsense,” and spending for “bad things.” These are politically safe targets, but they are only a small part of the spending problem.

The more politically difficult and significant targets are the unconstitutional federal programs and departments established during decades of invented crises and propaganda campaigns. The sad truth is that most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional! And unless Congress is forced to obey the strict limits of the Constitution, federal spending cannot be controlled. That is what Senator Paul refused to say.

Certainly, it requires much greater backbone (usually supported by an informed constituency) to challenge such destructive unconstitutional inroads as the Department of Education and President Johnson’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). But targeting the small stuff won’t cut it. As Napoleon Bonaparte once stated, “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” What America needs is leadership to undo the serious “errors” of the past.

Senator Rand Paul (September 29 on floor of Senate, from the Congressional Record):

“What we have here in Congress is a failure to legislate, a failure to exert congressional authority. What we have here is a failure to use our leverage. What we have here is a failure to use the power of the purse….

“What is a continuing resolution? It is a continuation of the deficit spending of the past. It is a continuation of the waste. It is a continuation of the duplication. What is a continuing resolution? …

“It is an abdication of congressional authority. It is an abdication of congressional power.

“Let’s at least be honest. With a continuing resolution, no waste will be cut, no spending will be cut, no regulations will be stopped, and the debt will continue to mount.

“We are told that we cannot win, that we need 60 votes to defund anything, but perhaps there is an alternate future where courage steps up and saves the day.

“All spending is set to expire automatically. This is the perfect time to turn the tables, to tell the other side that they will need 60 votes to affirmatively spend any money. See, it doesn’t have to be 60 votes to stop things. All spending will expire, and only those programs for which we can get 60 votes should go forward. [Emphasis added.]

“What would that mean? That would mean an elimination of waste, an elimination of duplication, an elimination of bad things that we spend money on.

“If we had the courage, we could use the Senate’s supermajority rules to stop wasteful spending. If we had the courage, we could force the other side to come up with 60 votes to fund things like Planned Parenthood. The budget is loaded with nonsense and waste.… [Emphasis added.]

“We should attach to all 12 individual spending bills–not glommed together–we should attach hundreds of instructions, thousands of instructions. Now, some of the media have said: Well, those would be riders on appropriations bills. Exactly. That is the power of the purse. If you object to the President writing regulations without our authority, Congress should defund the regulations….

“Would we win all of these battles? Do we have the power to win every battle and defund everything we want? No. But do you know what we start out with? Our negotiating position right now is, we start out with defunding nothing….

“Now, several will report on this speech and say: Oh, he wants to shut down government. No, I don’t. I just want to exert the power of the purse, and that means spending must expire. I am all for renewing the spending, but let’s renew only the spending that makes sense. We have the power of the purse if we choose to exert it….

“The way we are supposed to spend money in Congress is 12 individual appropriations bills. They have passed out of committee. Why aren’t they presented on the floor? The Democrats have filibustered the only one presented. Let’s present every one of them, and let the public know–let everyone in America know–that it is Democrats filibustering the spending bills. It is Democrats who desire to shut down government….

“When is the last time we did it in the appropriate fashion? When is the last time Congress passed each of the individual appropriations bills with instructions on how to spend the money? It was 2005, a decade ago. It has been a decade. In the last decade we have added nearly $10 trillion in new debt. It is time to take a stand.”

******

Freedom First Society: While we generally agreed with what Senator Cruz stated during the Senate debate, he, too, failed to champion the strict limits the Constitution imposes on federal activity. And in blaming the growth of government on the political influence of corporations and K-street lobbyists, he grossly understates what is driving the growth of federal power.

However, we do find it very refreshing for Senator Cruz to affirm that so many of the votes scheduled in Congress are nothing more than show votes (on measures that everyone knows will go nowhere). They serve little more than to support campaigning. We refuse to score Congress on such “posturing” votes.

Senator Ted Cruz (September 29 on floor of Senate):

“In today’s Washington, there are three kinds of votes. No. 1, there are show votes–votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters, where the outcome is foreordained, where most Republicans will vote one way and most Democrats will vote the other. Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both Houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose.

“We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?

“We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. Indeed, it did not.

“The second kind of vote is a vote that simply grows government, dramatically expands spending, and expands corporate welfare. Those votes pass because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government and in particular handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh boy. If you have the lobbyists on K Street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 in this Chamber because Republican leadership loves it and Democrats are always willing to grow government.

“Then there is the third kind of vote–votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side–the Democratic Party–is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this Chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories: either a continuing resolution, an omnibus appropriations bill, or a debt ceiling increase. All of those three are deemed must-pass votes. If you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But, as I mentioned before, you have one side who has preemptively surrendered.

“Republican leadership has said they will never ever shut down the government, and suddenly President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle: He simply has to utter the word “shutdown” and Republican leadership runs to the hills…

“If we don’t stop what we are doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they will not be able to spend in the future for the priorities of the future–for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts.”

Bill Summary: This appropriations measure essentially allows spending for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2015 to continue at the same rate as last year’s spending until December 11. (As provided in Public Law 113-235 or, for the Department of Homeland Security, 114-4.)This Continuing Resolution (CR) did make a few changes from last year’s appropriations, described by House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers as “limited in scope and noncontroversial.” Spending in most categories was also reduced across the board less than a quarter of one percent (0.2108 percent) as required by the sequester caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Analysis: With this CR, the House made no effort to use its power of the purse to roll back government spending. The CR authorized business as usual for all departments for another 2 ½ months.

The Establishment media and many politicians from both parties misleadingly cast this capitulation to liberal demands as the only away to avoid an unconscionable government shutdown. Although some GOP representatives had wanted the CR to defund Planned Parenthood, the President has threatened to veto any measure that eliminated such funding.

Most media reports failed to create any understanding of how the House of Representatives could use its power of the purse to overcome liberal threats and rein in out-of-control spending. However, a surprising glimpse into sound strategy could be found in a September 10th Roll Call report:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Congress has a duty to decide how money should be spent and can’t see how Obama would be able to say Republicans were shutting down the government when they were offering to fund all of it except for Planned Parenthood.

“There is no reason whatsoever we should fund Planned Parenthood,” he said. “If you acquiesce and acknowledge the president is correct then Congress has no power whatsoever over the purse…. I just don’t see how that’s a losing issue. I think the president would look awful. He’s going to veto the Defense bill? He’s going to veto all these other bills? …We don’t need to be hiding under the table.”

Please see our full discussion of the proper course for outgunned, but responsible congressmen in “The Power of the Purse.”

Despite strong opposition within GOP ranks, the Senate and House GOP leadership chose to advance a “clean” CR that continued all of the “dirty” spending as demanded by the Obama administration. All of the voting Democrats supported it, but only a minority (91) of the GOP members embraced it, as against 151 who opposed it.

Because of such collusion, the 151 GOP Representatives opposing the measure were given no opportunity to speak during the floor debate. Instead, those Democrats and Republicans chosen to debate “debate” the CR assumed the CR was going forward and proceeded to tune up their partisan messaging for future fiscal battles and negotiations, while stressing the irresponsibility of a government shutdown.

The debate in the Senate, however, was not so limiting and two of the senators (Rand Paul and Ted Cruz) made quite illuminating observations that bolstered our contention in “The Power of the Purse.”

While we generally agreed with Senator Paul’s comments during the Senate debate, we were extremely disappointed with what he did not say. Over and over he spoke of a problem with “waste,” “duplication,” “nonsense,” and spending for “bad things.” These are politically safe targets, but they are only a small part of the spending problem.

The more politically difficult and significant targets are the unconstitutional federal programs and departments established during decades of invented crises and propaganda campaigns. The sad truth is that most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional! And unless Congress is forced to obey the strict limits of the Constitution, federal spending cannot be controlled. That is what Senator Paul refused to say.

Certainly, it requires much greater backbone (usually supported by an informed constituency) to challenge such destructive unconstitutional inroads as the Department of Education and President Johnson’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). But targeting the small stuff won’t cut it. As Napoleon Bonaparte once stated, “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” What America needs is leadership to undo the serious “errors” of the past.

Senator Rand Paul (September 29 on floor of Senate, from the Congressional Record):

“What we have here in Congress is a failure to legislate, a failure to exert congressional authority. What we have here is a failure to use our leverage. What we have here is a failure to use the power of the purse….

“What is a continuing resolution? It is a continuation of the deficit spending of the past. It is a continuation of the waste. It is a continuation of the duplication. What is a continuing resolution? …

“It is an abdication of congressional authority. It is an abdication of congressional power.

“Let’s at least be honest. With a continuing resolution, no waste will be cut, no spending will be cut, no regulations will be stopped, and the debt will continue to mount.

“We are told that we cannot win, that we need 60 votes to defund anything, but perhaps there is an alternate future where courage steps up and saves the day.

“All spending is set to expire automatically. This is the perfect time to turn the tables, to tell the other side that they will need 60 votes to affirmatively spend any money. See, it doesn’t have to be 60 votes to stop things. All spending will expire, and only those programs for which we can get 60 votes should go forward. [Emphasis added.]

“What would that mean? That would mean an elimination of waste, an elimination of duplication, an elimination of bad things that we spend money on.

“If we had the courage, we could use the Senate’s supermajority rules to stop wasteful spending. If we had the courage, we could force the other side to come up with 60 votes to fund things like Planned Parenthood. The budget is loaded with nonsense and waste.… [Emphasis added.]

“We should attach to all 12 individual spending bills–not glommed together–we should attach hundreds of instructions, thousands of instructions. Now, some of the media have said: Well, those would be riders on appropriations bills. Exactly. That is the power of the purse. If you object to the President writing regulations without our authority, Congress should defund the regulations….

“Would we win all of these battles? Do we have the power to win every battle and defund everything we want? No. But do you know what we start out with? Our negotiating position right now is, we start out with defunding nothing….

“Now, several will report on this speech and say: Oh, he wants to shut down government. No, I don’t. I just want to exert the power of the purse, and that means spending must expire. I am all for renewing the spending, but let’s renew only the spending that makes sense. We have the power of the purse if we choose to exert it….

“The way we are supposed to spend money in Congress is 12 individual appropriations bills. They have passed out of committee. Why aren’t they presented on the floor? The Democrats have filibustered the only one presented. Let’s present every one of them, and let the public know–let everyone in America know–that it is Democrats filibustering the spending bills. It is Democrats who desire to shut down government….

“When is the last time we did it in the appropriate fashion? When is the last time Congress passed each of the individual appropriations bills with instructions on how to spend the money? It was 2005, a decade ago. It has been a decade. In the last decade we have added nearly $10 trillion in new debt. It is time to take a stand.”

******

Freedom First Society: While we generally agreed with what Senator Cruz stated during the Senate debate, he, too, failed to champion the strict limits the Constitution imposes on federal activity. And in blaming the growth of government on the political influence of corporations and K-street lobbyists, he grossly understates what is driving the growth of federal power.

However, we do find it very refreshing for Senator Cruz to affirm that so many of the votes scheduled in Congress are nothing more than show votes (on measures that everyone knows will go nowhere). They serve little more than to support campaigning. We refuse to score Congress on such “posturing” votes.

Senator Ted Cruz (September 29 on floor of Senate):

“In today’s Washington, there are three kinds of votes. No. 1, there are show votes–votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters, where the outcome is foreordained, where most Republicans will vote one way and most Democrats will vote the other. Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both Houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose.

“We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?

“We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. Indeed, it did not.

“The second kind of vote is a vote that simply grows government, dramatically expands spending, and expands corporate welfare. Those votes pass because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government and in particular handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh boy. If you have the lobbyists on K Street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 in this Chamber because Republican leadership loves it and Democrats are always willing to grow government.

“Then there is the third kind of vote–votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side–the Democratic Party–is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this Chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories: either a continuing resolution, an omnibus appropriations bill, or a debt ceiling increase. All of those three are deemed must-pass votes. If you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But, as I mentioned before, you have one side who has preemptively surrendered.

“Republican leadership has said they will never ever shut down the government, and suddenly President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle: He simply has to utter the word “shutdown” and Republican leadership runs to the hills…

“If we don’t stop what we are doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they will not be able to spend in the future for the priorities of the future–for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts.”