Congress has never been one to find a lot of meaning in deadlines, but the end of this week presents an important expiration date: President Trump’s rescissions package will lose its privileged status on Friday if the Senate doesn’t act to put his recommendations into law.
In May, Trump submitted the largest rescissions package in history to Congress. The House passed a slightly modified version of the proposal two weeks ago, amounting to nearly $15 billion in spending rescissions.
Both chambers have their skeptics; but this is the rare case in which the right policy actually translates into the right politics as well.
First, the swamp-like instinct to reject any diminution of the size of government must be checked – both for the long-term fiscal health of the country, but also for the political health of the party that has styled itself as the champion of small government. When measured against more than $4 trillion in annual spending, $15 billion seems like a paltry undertaking, which is all the more reason politicians should be eager to undertake this small but serious step forward in raising their fiscal credibility.
What’s more, the fact remains that the bill doesn’t actually cut any spending in a way that impacts program activity – instead, it takes back money that cannot or will not be spent. In many instances, the authority to spend the money has outlived its usefulness. This is the case with funds from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which has not made a loan since 2011. Surely even the most spendthrift in Congress can agree that “advanced technology” is likely a misnomer for a program that is more than a decade old and has been dormant for seven years.
Likewise, proponents of big government have tried to defend the practice of keeping taxpayer dollars on the books despite years of evidence that the money is never used. Such is the case with nearly $2 billion included in the package from the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program. The fund in question was created in 2009, but since then only three states have used it, resulting in $108 million in spending.
The Congressional Budget Office affirmed that these funds, in addition to $5 billion in other CHIP funds included in the proposal, would “reduce budget authority by $7 billion, but would not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage.”
Not only did CBO’s finding support the administration’s position that these unobligated balances will have no impact on program integrity – FactCheck.org chimed in, taking Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to task for claiming the proposal takes “money away from kids who need healthcare” when experts have concluded that the money cannot or will not be spent. FactCheck.org also pointed out that Schumer supported the same measures when they were included in an omnibus spending measure earlier this year.
It is Congress’s unique constitutional responsibility to exert oversight exactly over this kind of spending. Reticence to tackle spending that has no useful application reveals a true deficit of fiscal stamina. But even if Congress’ fiscal intuitions have been so dimmed that these small efforts to align spending with outcomes has met resistance, the political motivation to pass the rescissions package should impel action immediately.
Another budget deadline will be here quickly – and the stakes for it have already been set high. Trump has said he would not sign another omnibus measure like the one passed early this spring. Given that this is the preferred method by Congress for keeping the government open, lawmakers should feel compelled to think critically about how to avoid a showdown when current government funding runs out in September.
Passing the rescissions package into law won’t fix our fiscal house, but it does send the signal to the president that Congress is starting to contemplate some of our serious spending problems. Absent any showing of fiscal reform from Congress, it is unlikely the president will revise his position on government funding when the issue comes to a head in the fall.
The Trump administration has delivered on its campaign promise to reform the broken tax code and roll back the regulatory state, but it is Congress’ constitutional duty to restrain government spending. At a time when the other pillars of the Republican free enterprise agenda will be on the ballot, abdicating that responsibility is moral and political malpractice.
The economy is enjoying a renaissance unlike any other in the modern era, and with the tax cuts passed last year just now beginning to change business behavior in the U.S., American fortunes will continue to improve. Congress should be doing everything it can to prevent uncertainty that will destabilize markets and undermine this recovery. By avoiding making any decisions on spending policy, lawmakers are doing just that.
Mattie Duppler (@MDuppler) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is the senior fellow for fiscal policy at the National Taxpayers Union. She’s also a visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, and the president of Forward Strategies, a strategic consulting firm.
