Jura The idiot
General
Yesterday at 7:55 PM
and a tough headlineYesterday at 9:33 AM
so let's get started with This week in Congress: The Cromnibus and the Christmas shutdown showdown
... size limit reached; the article goes on below:After heading off a government shutdown with a “clean” temporary spending bill on , lawmakers are scrambling to reach a consensus under that funds the government beyond December 22nd. If leaders cannot come to a final agreement on spending levels and other thorny policy issues for a government spending deal before then, there may be a brief government shutdown.
How did we get here? On December 12th, President Trump signed into law, authorizing the first increase to military endstrength in seven years, the largest pay increase in eight, and a topline of $700 billion dollars. While Trump praised Chairman Mac Thornberry for his work to secure this higher topline, he cautioned that the military has “” and submitted a about Congress’ proposal.
While several of these worries—particularly the lack of action on (BRAC)—are justified, they pale in comparison with the “bigly-est” elephant in the room.
The $634 in base defense spending for fiscal year (FY) 2018 authorized by the bill is $85 billion dollars above the annual Budget Control Act cap spending limit for national defense. What does this mean?
Right now, the law contradicts itself. Even though the National Defense Authorization Act is current law, funding defense at those levels would breach spending caps and trigger a sequester. Predictably, the result has been confusion in Washington.
Nevertheless, Congress’ efforts to boost defense spending above levels requested by President Trump will pay off and lawmakers will get to yes. While there are still many variables at this point, there are a fair amount of knowns. Here’s a roundup of what to expect from the end of the year:
Congress will pass a two-year mini deal to amend the Budget Control Act.
At some point soon, likely in the next month, Congress will pass a two-year plan to raise the Budget Control Act spending caps. In the wake of 2013’s government shutdown, President Obama signed a bill just after Christmas by $22.4 billion in 2013 and $9.3 billion the next year. This proposal by a 332-94 vote and the Senate by 64-36.
At the expiration of that deal, Congress . Intended to be prophylactic rather than reactionary, it was signed into law on November 2nd, 2015, barely a month into the fiscal year. While the law once again cleared the Senate with 64 votes, it in the House of Representatives.
In part, this was due to the plan’s controversial handling of . In addition to raising federal discretionary spending by $80 billion over fiscal 2016 and fiscal ’17, the plan authorized a $7.9 billion increase in the 2016 request for defense-related OCO, despite this account being exempt from statutory caps. This increase was matched by a proportionate plus-up to State Department OCO——and an understanding that FY17 OCO would be to what was received in 2016.
These changes more or less codified the use and abuse of OCO as an escape valve to fund State and Pentagon base budget needs to alleviate fiscal pressure on other agencies. Actual 2017 OCO was much higher than the deal suggested, netting $82.8 billion for defense and $20.8 billion for the State Department.
All indicators suggest there will be no letup in the OCO accounting gimmicks to stave off calls for deficit reduction in the coming third mini deal to amend the Budget Control Act. Given the impending midterms and the political costs of supporting massive cuts to programs that benefit constituents, it’s simply too easy not to. have already demonstrated their reticence to go along with the administration’s drastic proposed cuts to the State Department and other international aid programs, which the touted as amounting to a 29 percent reduction from anticipated 2017 spending. With the need to bring Democrats aboard and placate constituents in their home states, there is little reason to believe the deep cuts proposed by Trump to Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the departments of the Interior, Justice, Labor, and the Treasury will materialize.
Biggest BCA “Fix” Yet
Where the 2013 “Ryan-Murray” deal added $63.4 billion in new spending above previous limits and the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act added $80 billion (discounting its OCO shenanigans), raising just the defense cap for 2018 to accommodate the 2018 NDAA’s topline would cost $85 billion. That doesn’t include any increase to the $515.6 billion for FY18, which will be required to secure enough votes in the Senate for bipartisan passage.
The most commonly cited number in the rumor mill for a new two-year deal is $200 billion in new discretionary spending. Yet owing to the massive defense need, there are only three ways to reach that level of spending: break the parity between defense and nondefense increases, as , set unrealistic expectations for the 2019 caps, or rely more heavily on OCO spending to cover base budget needs. Or some combination thereof.
The price of any budget deal will be near-parity increases for defense and non-defense discretionary spending.
Equal dollar-for-dollar increases to defense and nondefense spending have been the bedrock of both previous bipartisan budget deals. Republicans are now seeking to use their majorities in both chambers of Congress to secure a disproportionate increase for defense spending.
On December 13th, Frelinghuysen to fully fund national defense for the rest of the fiscal year as part of a Continuing Resolution that funded the rest of the government through January 19th. By supporting this proposal, Democrats would give up their political leverage to use defense increases to secure proportionate increases to domestic programs. Consequently, anything that is not parity or very close to it will not become law. For proof, look no further than the negotiations and outcome of the 2017 government funding bill.
As of now, other rumored are to fund defense increases of $60 billion to $70 billion, coupled with nondefense increases of $50 to $60 billion each year for two years. That is the minimum Democrats will likely accept for any spending deal. A organized by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pledging to oppose any deal without proportional increases was signed by 44 of the 48 Democratic senators, denying Republicans the 60 Senate votes they need to avoid a filibuster. Given Democrats’ overwhelming leverage, they’re likely to secure 1:1 parity for defense and nondefense, or very close to it.
...
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/IJFHGR3XHBE3RJMTLJYIDA67HM.jpg)
