- What’s $70 Billion among friends
Our humble advise to President Trump – if these spending levels with this process make it to your desk as outlined in the article from Heritage set forth below, veto them on principle.
Seriously what harm could come, with the few exceptions that needed real increases, from vetoing the bills and issuing a veto message to the effect ~~ comeback with a 5% reduction across the board in every category, or overall (0% in these but 10% in these amounting to the 5% reduction overall). Whichever is most politically efficacious and with certain pointed areas of objection. But who seriously believes every area could not be cut and taxpayers would not benefit from a sharper pencil? Doing so would help Republicans (albeit with many gnashing their teeth) reinstate if not maintain a persona of smaller government.
Aspects to these spending bills and they are that, not mere authorization bills, as it is money appropriated to go out the door are that they are to a great extent irresponsible autopilot crap and larded up at that. Some of it in violation of Republican party commitments. As reported in the Heritage analysis regarding Health care appropriations:
However, the bill does not touch the underlying spending that these taxes fund—i.e., the Obamacare entitlement spending scheme. This scheme also contributes to higher health costs and greater taxpayer burdens, by giving insurance companies more money every time they raise prices.
That scheme apparently includes funding of the likes of Planned Parenthood as part of the Obamacare entitlements which at least indirectly benefits their abortion regime.
And why are we increasing federal spending in the area of education and not seriously reducing it? And as for agriculture, what farmer in their sober analysis doesn’t know the wastes and misdirections there such that 5% would be a mere token.
And furthermore as regards health and social service spending contained therein, who thinks we could not reduce related demands with extra spending on preventing illegal immigration through a border wall and other interdiction efforts. We would guess for every dollar increase in that area, multiples of that would be saved elsewhere (this speaks to a 5% overall strategy message).
A 5% veto message would help Trump and help Republicans in general.
Via Heritage Foundation:
The House passed two spending bills totaling $1.4 trillion Tuesday to fund the federal government through the remainder of fiscal year 2020, which began Oct. 1.
Although the first bill would provide much-needed funding and budget certainty to core constitutional responsibilities, such as national defense, the second “minibus” is a Christmas tree of bloated spending and add-ons that have no place being voted on through an appropriations bill.
The House passed the two bills, introduced late Monday afternoon, in less than 24 hours. The Senate is expected to consider the two measures later this week.
The fact that the House voted on more than 2,000 combined pages of text within 24 hours of introducing the two bills is a troubling symptom of Washington’s budget dysfunction. This is not the way that the budget process is supposed to work, and it leads to wasteful spending and other negative impacts for American taxpayers. …