Okay, This is the letter I received from Representative De Santis this morning. More interesting points. Dear Friend– I wanted to provide you with an update on the fiscal situation in Washington. Please understand that the federal government is not actually “shut down” – roughly 87% of federal spending is continuing unabated, from Social Security payments to compensation for active duty military members. Before I get into the details of the current impasse, it is worth pointing out that we have witnessed a complete breakdown in the budgeting and appropriations processes of Congress. Although the Constitution gives Congress a number of powers, the most important of those powers are the exclusive authority of Congress to tax, borrow, and spend. Indeed, as James Madison wrote in The Federalist, “the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” Yet, for years now, Congress has rarely completed even a fraction of the 12 annual appropriations bills that are supposed to fund the government. When Congress legislates an appropriations bill, it gives the American people, through their elected representatives, their best chance to reform the operations of their government. Upset that the IRS has abused its authority? Congress can vote to reduce its funding. Oppose the mass data collection being undertaken by the NSA? Congress can vote to defund those activities. Believe that more funds need to be directed towards medical research for, say autism? Congress can vote to increase funding for autism and/or can repurpose other funding to meet this need. As Madison explained, the appropriations process is where the rubber meets the road in terms of promoting good policy, redressing grievances of the citizenry, and checking the other branches of government. Much has been said about a so-called continuing resolution (aka a “CR”). A CR simply continues spending policies that have been previously enacted. When a CR is an omnibus CR that covers the entire discretionary part of the government, it prevents the American people from reforming government using the purse strings. Here is commentator Mark Steyn on the problems with governing by CR: In fact, government by “continuing resolution” is a sleazy racket: The legislative branch is supposed to legislate. Instead, they’re presented with a yea-or-nay vote on a single all-or-nothing multi-trillion-dollar band-aid stitched together behind closed doors to hold the federal leviathan together while it belches its way through to the next budget cycle. As Professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University put it, “This turns democracy into a choice between tyranny and anarchy.” It’s certainly a perversion of responsible government: Congress has less say over specific federal expenditures than the citizens of my New Hampshire backwater do at Town Meeting over the budget for a new fence at the town dump. Pace Senator Reid, Republican proposals to allocate spending through targeted, mere multi-billion-dollar appropriations are not only not “irresponsible” but, in fact, a vast improvement over the “continuing resolution”: To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, but continuing power corrupts continually. Since I have been in Congress, the House has passed 4 appropriations bills: for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and Energy and Water Development. This is clearly not adequate. In fact, I have cosponsored a resolution that would prohibit a house of Congress from adjourning for more than a week if all 12 appropriations bills have not been passed by that house. At the same time, it is incredible that the U.S. Senate has not passed a single appropriations bill all year. The VA funding bill passed out of the House with more than 400 votes, with all Republicans and all but four Democrats voting “Yes,” yet the Senate could not be bothered to pass even this very noncontroversial piece of legislation. This is a complete abdication of the legislative duties of the Senate. There is no reason why the above-referenced appropriations bills – which would have funded the respective departments for the entire fiscal year – have not been signed into law. The upshot of this dereliction of duty is that, as we approached the end of the fiscal year on September 30, there were not any funding measures enacted for the 2014 fiscal year. On Monday night, after refusing to negotiate with the House of Representatives, the Senate killed a bill that would have funded the federal government. Why? Because the bill blocked illegally granted subsidies for members of Congress and other Washington insiders – subsidies designed to shield the political elite from the pain of ObamaCare. The bill also granted every American the same one-year waiver from ObamaCare’s coercive individual mandate that the president has granted - once again, illegally - to big business and to insurance companies. It appears that a majority of senators are so insistent on engineering special deals for themselves and their friends that they were willing to allow appropriations for the government to lapse rather than forgo this type of special treatment. Senate leaders say they only support a "clean CR." A "clean" bill, though, ratifies many “dirty” elements: it preserves the special subsidy that the administration has illegally granted to members of Congress for use on the ObamaCare exchanges. It also ratifies the President’s decision to delay the employer mandate without any legal authorization to have done so. This is not acceptable: members of Congress must live by the letter of the laws that they pass and the President must enforce the law as written. The political class should not be permitted to receive a special bailout in order to relieve themselves and their friends of the burdens imposed by the legislation they enact. The position of the Senate and the White House is that they will not negotiate and will only agree to fund the government if it is done through one omnibus bill devoid of any policy reforms. “Piecemeal” bills, they claim, are not acceptable – even though individual spending bills are much more in line with how Congress is supposed to appropriate money. But earlier in the week, the Senate passed and the President signed a “piecemeal” bill to provide funding for active duty military and civilian support personnel. Since the new fiscal year began, the House has passed additional specific measures funding programs for veterans, research at the National Institutes of Health (including for clinical trials for pediatric cancer patients), emergency and disaster relief, National Guard and reserve pay, nutrition assistance for women and children, and national parks and museums. All of these bills passed the House with bipartisan support, yet, unlike the bill for active duty military pay, the Senate has not taken up any of these noncontroversial funding measures. It seems to me that the bills that are supposed to enjoy broad support should be enacted immediately, and the more controversial subjects – from the IRS to ObamaCare – can be debated separately. As things stand today, Senator Harry Reid and the President refuse to negotiate or compromise their position. This includes their position that members of Congress deserve a financial bailout from the negative effects of the health care law, as well as their view that employers deserve a one-year delay in the law but that individuals and families somehow do not. The House has appointed some of its members to serve as negotiators so that the House and Senate can bridge its differences. The Senate needs to come to the table. Simply refusing to talk to the House is not a sustainable or acceptable position. The “shutdown” has devolved into political theater – barricading war memorials to WWII veterans and issuing veto threats on bills that would provide health services to sick children. During this time, I do not believe it is appropriate for members of Congress to receive pay and I have requested that my pay be withheld until this lapse in appropriations is resolved. Last week, I spoke to Jake Tapper on CNN regarding my decision to request for my pay to be withheld. Please watch that interview by clicking here. The idea is that members of Congress should not be treated better than other employee of the federal government.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:13:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015