9:23 AM
Julio Barreto
The congressional lame duck session will come to a close soon now that the legislation to extend various tax cuts including the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits has passed the House and will be signed by the president. The next step will be to approve a FY 2011 spending measure.
A lame duck session became necessary because the outgoing Congress did not pass any of the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government. However, that earlier passed CR expires at 12:01 a.m., Sunday, December 19th. Therefore, if Congress does not act pass a new funding measure by that date the federal government will be forced to shut down.
While there were critics of the lame duck session, many members of Congress argued that besides the CR, Congress had to use the session to pass an extension of unemployment benefits. Although states pay for the first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, the federal government funds 34 to 53 weeks of "emergency benefits" and another 13 to 20 weeks of "extended benefits," thus allowing the long-term unemployed up to 99 weeks of benefits. Now that the measure has passed Congress can move on to completing the appropriations bill. Finding a compromise on the budget may prove a trickier task because any agreement will be tied to the politics of the November elections.
Because of the length of the discussion on the tax extensions, there is less time to debate and resolve differences for FY2011 budget. Time is on the side of the deficit hawks. The less time for a FY2011 debate, the more likely a short-term CR funding the government into January or February at the latest will be passed.
Congress has three options: pass a year-ling continuing resolution (CR), pass an omnibus bill which contains all 12 appropriations bills combined into one, or pass a short-term CR until the new Congress convenes in January.
The House passed a year-long CR and now the Senate must pass a bill which must then go to conference. The House bill keeps funding at the FY2010 level which is a cut in real dollars. The Senate tried to pass an omnibus bill with a slight increase in funding and approximately $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans prefer enacting a FY2011 spending bill that will only last through the end of January after they are in control of the House of Representatives. Republicans prefer to begin their charge to reduce Federal budget with current spending versus waiting for the FY 2012 budget. When they take control, Republicans are committed to changing the way appropriation bills are voted on in their chamber. They want to decide the budgets by agency versus bills grouped by committee jurisdiction.
If Republicans establish a new appropriations process, it will make it easier for Republicans to go after agencies they typically oppose like the departments of education, housing, Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. It will create open warfare in the House and gridlock with the Senate. Democrats have no interest in changing the way the Senate operates. As a result, negotiations to agree on appropriations bills will be contentious and time-consuming. It will also make it harder for advocates to defend the programs administered by these departments. These programs will be under greater scrutiny and become more vulnerable during a time of economic distress.
Housing, education and other programs to benefit the needy have wide, but not deep support in Congress. Consequently, it is “easier” to justify cutting these programs than it is to cut funding for defense, veterans or agriculture subsidies.
When Pork Is Not a Pig
The desire of conservative activists in Congress to place a moratorium on earmarks has resulted in some interesting measures under consideration to ensure representatives are bringing home the bacon without being accused of “pork barrel” spending. House Republicans are discussing ways to redefine earmark spending to get around the ban singled for by the conservative wing of the party. Veterans Members of Congress are concerned that local projects will not be funded as a result.
As reported by Politico there is discussion underway to possibly exempt certain projects such as transportation and water. This will allow members to demonstrate to their constituents they are addressing pressing local needs. Even Tea Party leader Michele Bachman (R-MN) is against an outright ban. It is interesting how quickly the newcomers are conforming to the Washington way of doing business. The newcomers are quickly learning political rhetoric gives way to practical reality of politics after the election. It will be interesting to monitor this development next Congress.
The Spirit of the Deficit Commission’s Final Report Will Hover over Congress Next Year
In spite of the failure of the Deficit Reduction Commission to have a super majority approve the recommendations submitted to tackle the nation’s growing debt, the spotlight is now on congressional leaders to make the politically difficult decisions in the next session of identifying program cuts and tax increase to reduce the nation’s long-term debt.
The commission was three votes short of the majority needed to force Congress to act on its final recommendations which included cuts to popular initiatives like the mortgage deduction, defense programs, reductions in entitlement benefits and targeted tax increases.
The commission’s failure to secure 14 votes does little to minimize the impact their recommendations will have on funding issues the next Congress. Republicans campaigned on the promise they would control government spending and make the tough decisions necessary to reduce the Federal debt. The report stated unequivocally that drastic measure must be taken to address the nation’s current fiscal situation.
The Commission, co-chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY) and Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, submitted its report with the belief that the nation must directly confront the real issues which must be addressed. They took their charge to heart and did not spare any program or department or allow sentimentality influence their recommendations. The recommendations included:
1. Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in illustrative domestic and defense savings in 2015.
2. Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.
3. Address the “Doc Fix” (a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors) not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, and malpractice reform, and long-term measures to control health care cost growth.
4. Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement.
5. Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.
The panel’s emphasis on identifying a range of cuts to federal programs will draw a microscope around congressional action as it affects the deficit. For example, MSNBC’s First Read reported the irony that the cost of the agreement between Obama and Republicans - extending the tax cuts for two years, extending unemployment benefits and the other tax cuts in the agreement – will cost approximately $1 trillion which is more than the costs of the stimulus (approximately $800 billion).
It begs the question: how serious are both parties in reducing the deficit?
Interesting Read
Omnibus includes $8B in earmarks
By Scott Wong
Politico
The GOP Strategic Advantage
By Bill Connelly
Crystal Ball
2012 hopefuls challenged by tax deal
By Alexander Burns
Politico
Oversight Panel Slams Home-Rescue Efforts
By Jim Tankersley
National Journal
The Stages of Political Grief
By Charlie Cook
National Journal
Just weeks after 2010 election, Republicans lining up for 2012 Senate races
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post
In Entrepreneurship We Trust
By Alan McCormick
Forbes Magazine
Redistricting Reform is Tough Task Every Time
By Tricia Miller
Roll Call
Census Figures to Be Released Soon
By Kyle Trygstad
Roll Call
Wooing Joe Lieberman for 2012
By Manu Raju
Politico
Straight Talk on Immigration
By Ruben Navarrette
Real Clear Politics
Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record, e-mails and interviews show
By Andrew Becker
Center for Investigative Reporting
Incoming GOP freshmen rapidly embracing big-money fundraisers
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post
A Whole New Name Game
By Ianthe Jeanne Dugan
The Wall Street Journal
Pension Woes Prompt GOP Move
By Michael Corkery
The Wall Street Journal
Maybe the government would earn more of our trust if it leveled with us more and invaded our privacy less.
By Matthew Dowd
The National Journal
What the Bowles-Simpson plan left out
By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post
Newt Gingrich's inner circle
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post
Mike Huckabee wants some respect
By Jonathan Martin & Ben Smith
Politico
House Rule
Will John Boehner control the Tea Party Congress?
by Peter J. Boyer
The New Yorker
2012 Hopefuls Gave Big to 2010 Candidates
Donation Strategies Differ for Palin, Pawlenty, Romney
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call
Tea Partyers Shredded Fundraising Playbook
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call Staff
First, Admit You Have a Problem
By Charlie Cook
The National Journal
A lame duck session became necessary because the outgoing Congress did not pass any of the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government. However, that earlier passed CR expires at 12:01 a.m., Sunday, December 19th. Therefore, if Congress does not act pass a new funding measure by that date the federal government will be forced to shut down.
While there were critics of the lame duck session, many members of Congress argued that besides the CR, Congress had to use the session to pass an extension of unemployment benefits. Although states pay for the first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, the federal government funds 34 to 53 weeks of "emergency benefits" and another 13 to 20 weeks of "extended benefits," thus allowing the long-term unemployed up to 99 weeks of benefits. Now that the measure has passed Congress can move on to completing the appropriations bill. Finding a compromise on the budget may prove a trickier task because any agreement will be tied to the politics of the November elections.
Because of the length of the discussion on the tax extensions, there is less time to debate and resolve differences for FY2011 budget. Time is on the side of the deficit hawks. The less time for a FY2011 debate, the more likely a short-term CR funding the government into January or February at the latest will be passed.
Congress has three options: pass a year-ling continuing resolution (CR), pass an omnibus bill which contains all 12 appropriations bills combined into one, or pass a short-term CR until the new Congress convenes in January.
The House passed a year-long CR and now the Senate must pass a bill which must then go to conference. The House bill keeps funding at the FY2010 level which is a cut in real dollars. The Senate tried to pass an omnibus bill with a slight increase in funding and approximately $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans prefer enacting a FY2011 spending bill that will only last through the end of January after they are in control of the House of Representatives. Republicans prefer to begin their charge to reduce Federal budget with current spending versus waiting for the FY 2012 budget. When they take control, Republicans are committed to changing the way appropriation bills are voted on in their chamber. They want to decide the budgets by agency versus bills grouped by committee jurisdiction.
If Republicans establish a new appropriations process, it will make it easier for Republicans to go after agencies they typically oppose like the departments of education, housing, Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. It will create open warfare in the House and gridlock with the Senate. Democrats have no interest in changing the way the Senate operates. As a result, negotiations to agree on appropriations bills will be contentious and time-consuming. It will also make it harder for advocates to defend the programs administered by these departments. These programs will be under greater scrutiny and become more vulnerable during a time of economic distress.
Housing, education and other programs to benefit the needy have wide, but not deep support in Congress. Consequently, it is “easier” to justify cutting these programs than it is to cut funding for defense, veterans or agriculture subsidies.
When Pork Is Not a Pig
The desire of conservative activists in Congress to place a moratorium on earmarks has resulted in some interesting measures under consideration to ensure representatives are bringing home the bacon without being accused of “pork barrel” spending. House Republicans are discussing ways to redefine earmark spending to get around the ban singled for by the conservative wing of the party. Veterans Members of Congress are concerned that local projects will not be funded as a result.
As reported by Politico there is discussion underway to possibly exempt certain projects such as transportation and water. This will allow members to demonstrate to their constituents they are addressing pressing local needs. Even Tea Party leader Michele Bachman (R-MN) is against an outright ban. It is interesting how quickly the newcomers are conforming to the Washington way of doing business. The newcomers are quickly learning political rhetoric gives way to practical reality of politics after the election. It will be interesting to monitor this development next Congress.
The Spirit of the Deficit Commission’s Final Report Will Hover over Congress Next Year
In spite of the failure of the Deficit Reduction Commission to have a super majority approve the recommendations submitted to tackle the nation’s growing debt, the spotlight is now on congressional leaders to make the politically difficult decisions in the next session of identifying program cuts and tax increase to reduce the nation’s long-term debt.
The commission was three votes short of the majority needed to force Congress to act on its final recommendations which included cuts to popular initiatives like the mortgage deduction, defense programs, reductions in entitlement benefits and targeted tax increases.
The commission’s failure to secure 14 votes does little to minimize the impact their recommendations will have on funding issues the next Congress. Republicans campaigned on the promise they would control government spending and make the tough decisions necessary to reduce the Federal debt. The report stated unequivocally that drastic measure must be taken to address the nation’s current fiscal situation.
The Commission, co-chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY) and Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, submitted its report with the belief that the nation must directly confront the real issues which must be addressed. They took their charge to heart and did not spare any program or department or allow sentimentality influence their recommendations. The recommendations included:
1. Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in illustrative domestic and defense savings in 2015.
2. Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.
3. Address the “Doc Fix” (a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors) not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, and malpractice reform, and long-term measures to control health care cost growth.
4. Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement.
5. Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.
The panel’s emphasis on identifying a range of cuts to federal programs will draw a microscope around congressional action as it affects the deficit. For example, MSNBC’s First Read reported the irony that the cost of the agreement between Obama and Republicans - extending the tax cuts for two years, extending unemployment benefits and the other tax cuts in the agreement – will cost approximately $1 trillion which is more than the costs of the stimulus (approximately $800 billion).
It begs the question: how serious are both parties in reducing the deficit?
Interesting Read
Omnibus includes $8B in earmarks
By Scott Wong
Politico
The GOP Strategic Advantage
By Bill Connelly
Crystal Ball
2012 hopefuls challenged by tax deal
By Alexander Burns
Politico
Oversight Panel Slams Home-Rescue Efforts
By Jim Tankersley
National Journal
The Stages of Political Grief
By Charlie Cook
National Journal
Just weeks after 2010 election, Republicans lining up for 2012 Senate races
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post
In Entrepreneurship We Trust
By Alan McCormick
Forbes Magazine
Redistricting Reform is Tough Task Every Time
By Tricia Miller
Roll Call
Census Figures to Be Released Soon
By Kyle Trygstad
Roll Call
Wooing Joe Lieberman for 2012
By Manu Raju
Politico
Straight Talk on Immigration
By Ruben Navarrette
Real Clear Politics
Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record, e-mails and interviews show
By Andrew Becker
Center for Investigative Reporting
Incoming GOP freshmen rapidly embracing big-money fundraisers
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post
A Whole New Name Game
By Ianthe Jeanne Dugan
The Wall Street Journal
Pension Woes Prompt GOP Move
By Michael Corkery
The Wall Street Journal
Maybe the government would earn more of our trust if it leveled with us more and invaded our privacy less.
By Matthew Dowd
The National Journal
What the Bowles-Simpson plan left out
By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post
Newt Gingrich's inner circle
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post
Mike Huckabee wants some respect
By Jonathan Martin & Ben Smith
Politico
House Rule
Will John Boehner control the Tea Party Congress?
by Peter J. Boyer
The New Yorker
2012 Hopefuls Gave Big to 2010 Candidates
Donation Strategies Differ for Palin, Pawlenty, Romney
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call
Tea Partyers Shredded Fundraising Playbook
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call Staff
First, Admit You Have a Problem
By Charlie Cook
The National Journal
