Posts

Senate GOP Puts $1,600,000,000,000 In Spending On Chopping Block

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senate Republicans are nearing a vote to slash more than $1.6 trillion in government spending over a decade within President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill — and the conference could enact more cuts in the final hours before a vote on final passage.

Trump and Senate Republicans are touting the largest cut to mandatory spending in American history within the upper chamber’s budget bill. The Senate proposal notably exceeds the initial House draft’s estimated savings by $200 billion over a ten-year period, surpassing Senate Republicans’ goal of slashing spending by $1.5 trillion over a ten-year period.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has also backed an effort to secure more cuts within the president’s sweeping tax relief and immigration legislation.

The deficit-reducing measure is sponsored by Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott and would lower the 90% federal match rate for new Medicaid enrollees in states that expanded coverage under the Affordable Care Act. A group of deficit-concerned senators, including Scott, helped secure a vote on the amendment, which will occur during an anticipated marathon session of voting, known as a “vote-a-rama,” before senators will vote on final passage of the bill.

“We think it’s really good policy,” Thune told reporters Sunday. “We’re going to do what we can to support that effort.” (Read more from “Senate GOP Puts $1,600,000,000,000 In Spending On Chopping Block” HERE)

Spending Deal Goes Down in Flames as House Republicans Confront Difficult Questions

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Republicans are going back to the drawing board after a deal negotiated Thursday failed decidedly just hours later.

The deal, thrown together during daylong negotiations between different ideological corners of the House Republican Conference and President-elect Donald Trump’s team, failed 174 to 236, with one voting present and 20 absences.

An astonishing 38 Republicans voted against the hastily assembled, Trump-endorsed deal, with nine not voting.

Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance stepped in Wednesday afternoon to drive the final stake in the heart of a previous deal negotiated by House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democrats. Support for that deal was deteriorating rapidly ahead of Trump taking action to reframe the debate, insisting the deal should have included a debt limit increase to take the tricky issue off his administration’s plate next Congress.

The new deal removed over a thousand pages of pork and other provisions unrelated to keeping the government open. (Read more from “Spending Deal Goes Down in Flames as House Republicans Confront Difficult Questions” HERE)

Pork, Parks, And Woke: All The ‘Fun’ Features In $1.7 Trillion Omnibus

/0 Comments/in , /by

Critics are howling at spending perks and rules littered throughout the $1.7 trillion “omnibus” bill meant to fund the federal government for another fiscal year.

The legislation was unveiled in the Senate early Tuesday and boasts $858 billion in defense funding as well as $772.5 billion for non-defense “discretionary programs,” according to a summary. Time is of the essence as funding expires Friday at midnight, leaving some lawmakers to grumble while poring over the legislation that is more than 4,000 pages long.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) shared a Twitter thread on what he dubbed “some of the most egregious provisions in the bill.” First on his list was a section outlining requirements of more than $1.5 million geared toward “border management requirements” for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including a ban on using those funds “to acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and capabilities, except for technology and capabilities to improve Border Patrol processing.”

Detecting something “fishy,” Bishop noted that the word “salmon” appears 48 times in the bill, which included a $65 million commitment to Pacific coastal salmon recovery. He also found $3 million for bee-friendly highways.

The conservative Heritage Foundation released a list of its own focused on “WOKE PRIORITIES IN THE OMNIBUS,” including several LGBTQ projects and “anti-racism” initiatives.

(Read more from “Pork, Parks, and Woke: All the ‘Fun’ Features in $1.7 Trillion Omnibus” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

GOP/Dem Spending Bill Funds Border Security for Eight Foreign Countries

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Democrat spending bill, negotiated with Republicans, uses American taxpayer money to fund “border security” measures in eight foreign countries while including no new funds to construct a border wall along the United States-Mexico border.

The government funding package spends about $370 million in taxpayer money to fund “enhanced border security” in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Oman. At least $150 million of that funding is allocated for Jordan’s borders.

Likewise, the package includes taxpayer money to fund border security in Libya, “border security activities” in Nepal, and “border security programs” in Pakistan.

Though Republicans were able to preserve nearly $2 billion in previously-allocated border wall construction funds, the package does not include any new border wall funding. (Read more from “GOP/Dem Spending Bill Funds Border Security for Eight Foreign Countries” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Democrats Rush to Get Votes on Spending Package, Infrastructure Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democrats in the House were trying to set up votes on two pieces of legislation on Friday, attempting to pass President Biden’s massive social spending package and the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

As reported by The Washington Post, “Democrats hope to vote first on a nearly $2 trillion plan that would expand Medicare, provide free, universal prekindergarten for all American children, set aside new sums to fight global warming, and offer new benefits to low-income families, much of which is paid for through taxes on millionaires and corporations.”

Additionally, after deliberation on that package, The Post reported, “Democrats next hope to turn to a roughly $1.2 trillion measure to improve the nation’s roads, bridges, pipes, ports and Internet connections. That infrastructure measure cleared the Senate on a bipartisan basis in August, but it has remained stuck in the House.”

On Friday morning, it was reportedly still unclear as to what the schedule for the votes could be.

“We’re working on it,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), as they kept trying to secure votes. (Read more from “Democrats Rush to Get Votes on Spending Package, Infrastructure Bill” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Democrats at Each Other’s Throats as Another Senator Takes Swing At Biden’s $3.5T Spending Spree Agenda

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., reiterated Thursday that she will not support a $3.5 trillion spending bill, in the latest sign of discord among key Democrats as President Biden scrambles to rally support for his signature piece of legislation.

“Senator Sinema said publicly more than two months ago, before Senate passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that she would not support a bill costing $3.5 trillion,” Sinema’s office said in a statement shared on her Twitter account. “In August, she shared detailed concerns and priorities, including dollar figures, directly with Senate Majority Leader [Chuck] Schumer and the White House. Claims that the Senator has not detailed her views to President Biden and Senator Schumer are false.”

Biden has personally met with Sinema and fellow moderate Democrat holdout Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on multiple occasions this week to negotiate an agreement on the spending bill. With a razor-thin majority, Biden needs every Senate Democrat to support his bill for it to pass.

Earlier Thursday, Manchin said he would not support a spending bill with a topline number larger than $1.5 trillion.

Sinema’s latest statement followed criticism from prominent progressives who say moderate opponents to the full spending bill have not been clear on their priorities. Critics included Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of many progressives who will not vote to approve the $1.2 trillion bipartisan physical infrastructure deal unless the Senate first passes a spending bill focused on social programs. (Read more from “Democrats at Each Other’s Throats as Another Senator Takes Swing At Biden’s $3.5T Spending Spree Agenda” HERE)

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabor-roeder/49331527821

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Senate Rejects Spending Cuts Proposed by Trump Administration

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Blaze. The Senate voted 48-50 to reject a spending cuts bill proposed by the White House. Two Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats to kill the measure. . .

The Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act proposed $15 billion in cuts between 2018 and 2028. The money would be cut from a number of different departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development.

However, the Washington Post noted that most of the spending would involve funds that the government could not spend anyway, including $7 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Program that mostly came from an expired and unusable account. When these programs are factored in, the total amount of budget cuts to be spread over the 11-year time period comes to around $1 billion. . .

Senate Democrats did not have the numbers to kill this bill without help from their Republican colleagues. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against the bill, as did Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who typically supports Trump’s policies. . .

The bill, which was requested by the Trump administration, was sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 16 Republican members of Congress. It narrowly passed the House of Representatives 210-206 on June 7. (Read more from “Senate Rejects Spending Cuts Proposed by Trump Administration” HERE)

________________________________________________

Senate Rejects Billions in Trump Spending Cuts as Two Republicans Vote ‘No’

By The Washington Post. The Senate on Wednesday rejected billions in spending cuts proposed by the Trump administration as two Republicans joined all Democrats in voting no.

The 48-50 vote rebuffed a White House plan to claw back some $15 billion in spending previously approved by Congress — a show of fiscal responsibility that was encouraged by conservative lawmakers outraged over a $1.3 trillion spending bill in March.

The House had approved the so-called rescissions package earlier this month. But passage had never been assured in the Senate, where a number of Republicans had been cool to the idea from the start.

Nevertheless, Wednesday’s outcome was startling because one of the opposing votes came from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who does not normally buck the White House or GOP leadership. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate and one of the Republicans who most frequently side with Democrats, cast the other GOP vote against the cuts. (Read more from “Senate Rejects Billions in Trump Spending Cuts as Two Republicans Vote ‘No’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

One Good Thing in Omnibus Bill, and It Has to Do With the Jailed Doctor Who Helped Us Kill Bin Laden

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Bizpac Review. . .The $1.3 trillion spending bill signed by the president on Friday withholds $33 million in foreign aid to Pakistan until the release of Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped the CIA locate and kill terror leader Osama bin Laden, Fox News reports.

Afridi assisted American intelligence by running a fake hepatitis vaccine program that allowed the CIA to confirm bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, Pakistan via comparison of DNA samples.

Lt. Col. Michael Waltz, a counter-terrorism adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, called Afridi’s role in the bin Laden capture-or-kill mission “critical.”

While hailed as a hero in America, the physician was imprisoned on charges of treason in his home country and reportedly tortured by Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency, including being burned with cigarettes and electrocuted. (Read more from “One Good Thing in Omnibus Bill, and It Has to Do With the Jailed Doctor Who Helped Us Kill Bin Laden” HERE)

_______________________________________________

What’s Included (and What’s Not) in the $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Bill

By Forbes. Tax Administration. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finally gets funding. After years of cuts, the bill allocates $11.4 billion to IRS, $196 million more than last year. The money is to be used to improve customer service and fund a “business systems modernization program” meant to bring IRS systems into the 21st century. Also included in that number is an extra $320 million “to be used solely for carrying out” the new tax law passed in December.

Border Security. The bill provides $1.6 billion in funding for border security. However, don’t start mixing up the plaster just yet: The funding can’t be used for “the wall.” Language in the bill only allows fencing similar to what’s already in place.

Opioid Crisis. The bill includes $500 million to fund research on opioid addiction and billions more in other programming and studies (including those related to opioid alternatives). Lest you doubt the impact of the crisis on the economy, the word “opioid” appears 24 times in the bill. Yes, a federal government spending bill.

Elections. The bill includes $380 million for states to shore up voting systems, including electronic enhancements.

Military. Medical care for veterans, including Medical and Prosthetic Research, gets a bump under the bill. There is also more money for troops (including a 2.4% pay raise, the largest since 2010).

(Read more from “What’s Included (and What’s Not) in the $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Bill” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump Signs the $1.3 Trillion Omnibus That NO ONE READ

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed the 2,232-page, $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill passed by Congress less than 48 hours after it was introduced.

The president held a press conference, declaring that although he was unhappy with several provisions of the bill, he would sign it.

“There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about, but we were forced to sign,” the president said, making a new promise: “I will never sign a bill like this again.”

The president touted the importance of military funding in the omnibus, citing national security concerns as one of the reasons he signed the bill.

“My highest duty is to keep America safe, nothing more important,” Trump said.

Criticizing several spending measures shoehorned into the bill, Trump called on Congress to grant the president a line-item veto power for spending bills. He also demanded that the Senate repeal the filibuster rule, which Democrats have abused to require a 60-vote threshold on nearly every piece of legislation considered by Congress during the Trump presidency.

Earlier, the president fueled speculation that he would veto the bill, issuing a tweet expressing frustration that Congress did not come to a deal on DACA, codifying amnesty for so-called “Dreamer” illegal aliens, and lamenting that a wall on the southern border was not funded.

But ultimately, the president surrendered his constitutional check on Congress and buckled to the swamp. The federal budget deficit was just increased by $1 trillion under a Republican president and with Republican control of Congress. (For more from the author of “President Trump Signs the $1.3 Trillion Omnibus That NO ONE READ” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Conservatives Are Unhappy With the Final Spending Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House of Representatives, with 103 Republicans voting no, passed a $1.1 trillion spending package Wednesday to keep the government running through September.

Conservative lawmakers who opposed the omnibus spending bill in the 309-118 vote said they’re disappointed the final plan doesn’t reflect that Republicans hold the levers of power in Washington.

Republicans hold 238 seats in the House and Democrats hold 193. Four seats are vacant.

“I don’t think it’s a win for conservatives or for Americans,” Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, a member of both the Republican Study Committee and the more conservative House Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal in an interview before the vote.

But Davidson, who voted against the spending bill, did not decry it altogether.

“There are things to like in the bill,” Davidson said. “I am glad we are doing some good things for the Department of Defense, I am glad we are doing things for border security.”

Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, voted against the spending bill, as did Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the Freedom Caucus.

The Senate, where Republicans hold 52 seats, was expected to vote later this week.

Conservatives tended to agree that Republicans scored points by securing $21 billion in new defense spending and $1.5 billion for border security, and by blocking new money for Obamacare and reducing the number of jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Democrats, however, said their wins included adding $2 million for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, securing health care coverage for retired coal miners and blocking Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.

There is a bright side and a dark side to the omnibus spending package, Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, said Wednesday at a monthly Capitol Hill briefing with reporters called Conversations with Conservatives.

“I do not see it as a win,” Labrador said, adding:

If you look at what happened, the negotiations started before we had the president and his Cabinet were in place. … So you’re not seeing a lot of the White House priorities in this bill, so I don’t see how we can say this is a win for the American people, or for the election that just happened. I could never call this actual spending bill a victory for conservatives or Republicans.

Labrador voted no.

“I don’t see it as a win for conservatives,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., who also voted no, said at the conservative lawmakers’ meeting with reporters, which occurred before the vote. “While there are some good things in it that conservatives want, the hallmark things that most of us ran on are conspicuously absent.”

But Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said President Donald Trump had been able to change the spending package for the better, despite Democrats’ crowing.

“[Democrats] wanted a shutdown, Mulvaney said. “They were desperate to make this administration look like we couldn’t function, like we couldn’t govern.”

Mulvaney said the lack of funds for Trump’s promised border wall was not a setback, especially since some of the new money is going to reinforce existing fencing. He told reporters in a White House briefing:

Keep in mind, building the border wall is not like building a wall at your house, OK … We would fix all those things anyway as we’re working our way to the new areas. So I wouldn’t agree with the premise that this sets us back at all. If nothing else, it actually helps us to fast-track where border security would be otherwise.

Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have said they preferred to put off a fight with Democrats over beginning to pay for the wall until the fall, rather than as part of funding the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.

The official deadline for lawmakers to approve the spending package was Sept. 30, 2016, and Davidson bemoaned the fact that Congress has continued to rely on short-term packages rather than passing a budget on time.

“I think you should quit giving a pass to people for missing their deadlines,” Davidson said.

The last time Congress met its budget deadline was in 1996.

But during a press briefing Monday at the White House, Mulvaney said the Trump administration could influence the spending package because Congress had not finalized it on time:

Can you imagine how different this bill is from what the bill that President Obama would have signed back in September? And it’s those differences that I want to talk about today, and those differences that summarize why we think this was a really solid bill for the administration.

However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the spending package a “big win” for Democrats.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., pronounced himself satisfied.

“I feel very good about the wins that we got with the administration in this bill,” Ryan said Tuesday.

The spending package includes an additional $331 million for airport security, $2 million more for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, and $137 million more for Customs and Border Protection, The Washington Post reported.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who voted no, did not mince words in his assessment of the spending legislation beforehand:

“This bill … really didn’t push the conservative ball down the court very much, with the possible exception of the increase in defense spending,” Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., a member of the House Appropriations Committee who voted no, said Wednesday.

In a commentary, Justin Bogie and Rachel Greszler, senior policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation, said the spending package was a missed opportunity.

“While the bill does make progress on issues like additional defense funding and increasing border security, it woefully fails the test of fiscal responsibility and does not advance important conservative policies,” they wrote. (For more from the author of “Why Conservatives Are Unhappy With the Final Spending Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.