Republicans open the fall spending fight by fumbling the kickoff
Republicans missed the ball on their first play of the fall spending fight. Just missed it and tripped over the tee. They can’t even blame Lucy Van Pelt. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) pitch to tie a six-month “clean” spending bill to passing legislation protecting federal elections from noncitizen voters fell apart Monday before the happy hours even emptied. The fight was to be the first time either the speaker or the Republican nominee had backed the sort of brinksmanship necessary to win a hard-nosed spending fall fight. The effort was far from a sure thing, but it was not doomed to failure. It was an easy fundraising tactic, kept spending levels even, protected a potential Trump administration from getting bogged down in Democrat and Ukraine hawk spending priorities its first year, and would have added long-needed protections to American elections. The great danger is a massive, bloated omnibus that binds a potential Trump administration to Democrat policies into the fall of 2025. Problems, however, were evident from the start. Some conservatives balked at a continuing resolution. They oppose the CR on essentially dogmatic grounds, fighting instead for the old-fashioned way: twelve appropriations bills, each dealing with its own area (like agriculture or defense), passed through the correct channels. It’s a noble dream but one that hasn’t been realized since 1996. Congress has lost the memory for it, even if it had the will — and it does not. Others balked because a clean CR wouldn’t include all the goodies they wanted for their pals in the Pentagon. A massive standing military takes a lot of money, but it also develops the sort of influence past statesmen warned against. They want their cash. These appropriators are the types of Republicans a strong speaker and whip would have brought into the fold with honey and other promises. Leadership still could. And finally, others balked because they don’t trust Johnson or his team. And true to form, Johnson’s team was reportedly open about not pushing hard on the CR fight. So why would conservatives take a vote against the old dogmas only for a bluff they won’t get backed on? The great danger in this stunning lack of teamwork is a massive, bloated omnibus that binds a potential Trump administration to Democrat policies into the fall of 2025. Democrats aren’t interested in a six-month CR that lasts until March. Johnson will likely need vulnerable Democrats to break to hold his thin lines when you account for the usual speaker-derangement-syndrome GOP “no” votes. That takes running hard on six months and election protections, then being willing to trade off parts of those demands at the very end — at the brink. What Democrats want is a three-month bill, ensuring the usual pressure on lawmakers in December to pass a spending bill to avoid a holiday shutdown. That would mean Christmas in D.C.: Trillions here, billions there, and a few million sprinkled on top. It would mean a Democrat, uniparty, and defense-hawk wish list. It means an administration potentially hog-tied by Congress for its entire first year. In short, it means a whole lot of the things conservatives say they want to avoid. But as one conservative House staffer put it, “they’ve got their eyes on the third down, but we're going to fumble the first.” The ship could get righted, but at this point, it would take Trump re-engaging on Capitol Hill. He’s a bit busy at the moment, so don’t count on it. Sign up for Bedford’s newsletterSign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter.
Republicans missed the ball on their first play of the fall spending fight. Just missed it and tripped over the tee. They can’t even blame Lucy Van Pelt. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) pitch to tie a six-month “clean” spending bill to passing legislation protecting federal elections from noncitizen voters fell apart Monday before the happy hours even emptied.
The fight was to be the first time either the speaker or the Republican nominee had backed the sort of brinksmanship necessary to win a hard-nosed spending fall fight. The effort was far from a sure thing, but it was not doomed to failure. It was an easy fundraising tactic, kept spending levels even, protected a potential Trump administration from getting bogged down in Democrat and Ukraine hawk spending priorities its first year, and would have added long-needed protections to American elections.
The great danger is a massive, bloated omnibus that binds a potential Trump administration to Democrat policies into the fall of 2025.
Problems, however, were evident from the start. Some conservatives balked at a continuing resolution. They oppose the CR on essentially dogmatic grounds, fighting instead for the old-fashioned way: twelve appropriations bills, each dealing with its own area (like agriculture or defense), passed through the correct channels. It’s a noble dream but one that hasn’t been realized since 1996. Congress has lost the memory for it, even if it had the will — and it does not.
Others balked because a clean CR wouldn’t include all the goodies they wanted for their pals in the Pentagon. A massive standing military takes a lot of money, but it also develops the sort of influence past statesmen warned against. They want their cash. These appropriators are the types of Republicans a strong speaker and whip would have brought into the fold with honey and other promises. Leadership still could.
And finally, others balked because they don’t trust Johnson or his team. And true to form, Johnson’s team was reportedly open about not pushing hard on the CR fight. So why would conservatives take a vote against the old dogmas only for a bluff they won’t get backed on?
The great danger in this stunning lack of teamwork is a massive, bloated omnibus that binds a potential Trump administration to Democrat policies into the fall of 2025. Democrats aren’t interested in a six-month CR that lasts until March. Johnson will likely need vulnerable Democrats to break to hold his thin lines when you account for the usual speaker-derangement-syndrome GOP “no” votes. That takes running hard on six months and election protections, then being willing to trade off parts of those demands at the very end — at the brink.
What Democrats want is a three-month bill, ensuring the usual pressure on lawmakers in December to pass a spending bill to avoid a holiday shutdown. That would mean Christmas in D.C.: Trillions here, billions there, and a few million sprinkled on top. It would mean a Democrat, uniparty, and defense-hawk wish list. It means an administration potentially hog-tied by Congress for its entire first year. In short, it means a whole lot of the things conservatives say they want to avoid.
But as one conservative House staffer put it, “they’ve got their eyes on the third down, but we're going to fumble the first.” The ship could get righted, but at this point, it would take Trump re-engaging on Capitol Hill. He’s a bit busy at the moment, so don’t count on it.
Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter.
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
