We’re officially dealing with a coronavirus outbreak here in the United States. That’s why the White House asked Congress to divert $1.25 billion from other programs to fund the fight against the disease.
This was a great idea. Requesting diverted funding from other federal programs, rather than just new spending to be added to the taxpayer tab, is a rare move of fiscal responsibility from the Trump administration. After all, with the national debt now over $23 trillion and counting, the federal government cannot afford to expand its budget every time a problem arises.
However, House Democrats have already clashed with the administration over the proposed diversions.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Trump of trying to “steal funds” and proposed his own $8.5 billion plan to prepare for a coronavirus outbreak. Many other Democrats have taken exception to the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts, including $37 million divestment from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides heating assistance to the poor.
Ultimately, the final congressional proposal is expected to range from $6 billion to $8 billion — roughly $7 billion more than the one proposed by the White House. Whatever the eventual funding plan ends up being, though, Congress should be sure that any new spending should be offset by budget cuts elsewhere.
Congress has had a poor track record of offsetting emergency funding in recent years.
For instance, when providing emergency funding in response to Hurricane Harvey, a Republican-majority Congress and Republican president approved an almost $8 billion plan without any offsets. In 2012, the $50.5 billion plan to fund recovery after Hurricane Sandy was passed without offsets, as well. These are only a few examples, but they outline a disturbing trend.
Furthermore, the lack of congressional rules and discipline surrounding “emergency” funding has allowed too many bad habits to develop.
For example, Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center has identified a shell game in which Congress repeatedly used emergency funding as a way to avoid the spending caps set by annual budget resolutions. This also allows lawmakers to fund pet projects in their districts that wouldn’t survive under tougher scrutiny. It’s all part of a larger unchecked trend of sneaking questionable provisions into must-pass legislation.
Some of the pork barrel projects that have received “emergency funding” include a fish hatchery in Montana, a wastewater program in Mississippi, funding for the U.S. Capitol Police, and an abstinence education program in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Consider that when determining why Congress’s emergency funding plan is so much more expensive than the one that came from the White House.
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, and other Democrats don’t like the administration’s proposed budget cuts, there’s good news for them: The White House doesn’t get to decide what programs get cut, and they control half of the branch of our government that does. Democrat Elizabeth Warren has already proposed a bill that would divert funding from the border wall to deal with preparations for a coronavirus outbreak. The Massachusetts senator’s bill is probably just a stunt, and Trump would never sign it, but it still shows the right sort of thinking.
There is truly no shortage of programs that could afford to have their spending reduced.
Congress could start with the cronyist Export-Import Bank, the Appalachian Regional Commission, or just look at any one of Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s annual Festivus tweets highlighting government waste. If congressional leaders are serious about confronting the coronavirus threat, they can find the funds easily enough without further indebting taxpayers.
Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.
