Thread: John Boehner set to slice up spending bills

House Republicans are devising a plan to simplify spending decisions by considering government funding bills on a department-by-department basis in the new Congress, according to Republican insiders.

The move would facilitate cutbacks in government programs and, GOP aides say, enhance oversight and accountability for individual agencies, fulfilling promises made by Republicans on the campaign trail and in their Pledge to America. But it would also threaten to complicate an already tattered appropriations process on the House floor and in negotiations with the Senate, which is why the mechanics of the transition are still under discussion.

In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) outlined the idea that he, Republican transition chief Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and rank-and-file Republicans are now working to implement.

"Let's do away with the concept of 'comprehensive' spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit," he said at AEI more than a month before the midterm election. "Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own."

read more at: John Boehner set to slice up spending bills - Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

As the article says, this issue should come to no great surprise to anyone. Boehner has spoken of this long ago.

I think it's a good idea and it dovetails well with the desire to end earmarks. I think each of the Departments should be required to justify their existence and money needs on an individual basis and without pet projects slipped in.

Let's get the Legislators back to doing what they were voted in to do. Run the Government without overrunning the People.

Originally Posted by JoJoGunne

As the article says, this issue should come to no great surprise to anyone. Boehner has spoken of this long ago.

I think it's a good idea and it dovetails well with the desire to end earmarks. I think each of the Departments should be required to justify their existence and money needs on an individual basis and without pet projects slipped in.

Let's get the Legislators back to doing what they were voted in to do. Run the Government without overrunning the People.

Oh, good Lord.

Look, JoJo, I don't have a problem with Boehner wanting to limit or eliminate earmarks, although I think he's going to get more opposition to that idea than he thinks he will, and not all of it will be from Democrats. For instance, Michelle Bachmann has already stated that she doesn't believe asking for needed road or bridge construction from the budget of the Transportation Department should be considered an earmark. Sorry, Michelle baby, but requesting funds for specific projects in your state is the very definition of an earmark.

But this latest idea of Boehner's is just plain stupid. So he wants to what - call each of the major departments in front of the House, and have them all justify their existence, and their budgets? Isn't that what House Committees and Sub-Committees on these various departments are already there for? And Boehner wants to clog up the House floor with this stuff?

Second, I don't think it would work, just from a logistical vantage-point. There are some 17 different major departments in the government, assuming Boehner includes the CIA and FBI under Homeland Security, and doesn't break out each of the major branches of the military, although committees right now rarely, if ever, call all of the Joint Chiefs in at one time for budget meetings - they are usually treated as separate departments for the purposes of budgeting.

In any event, if all of these departments were to come into the House, one after the other, and spend say two weeks (a conservative figure) going through their budgets line item by line item, congress wouldn't get anything else done, for nearly two years, and still not have voted on a budget. Think I'm kidding?

Since about 1998, the House has been "in session" only about 110 days out of the year. That's 110 days of actual House Floor discussions, hearings, debates, votes and the like. Theoretically, they could almost get all of the departments done in one year, if they worked five days a week, up to their usual Christmas/Winter break period. That would give them 215 days at least, to go over all of these Department budgets.

But they don't have 215 days, what with spring, summer and fall breaks, (aka home district work periods), time for campaigning, and the fact that Congress is actually only "in session" three days a week and not five, and you begin to see the problem.

And that 170 days (2 weeks X 5 days per week X 17 departments) to go over the various department budgets would be just for that - department budgets. Meanwhile, no other independent agencies would get their budgets looked at. No other legislation of any kind would get written, debated or voted on. In fact, nothing else of any kind would get done, because the house would be spending all, and I mean all of it's time just approving budgets. Well, all of it's time, and then some.

And congress still wouldn't get all of them done in time to keep multiple departments from running out of money, without a series of continuing resolutions. Oh, wait. Sorry, They'd be so busy going over these individual budgets, that there would be no time left to draft, debate or vote on a continuing resolution.

Are you beginning to grasp the scope of the situation, yet, JoJo? Because I'm quite sure Boehner hasn't thought this idea through.

Originally Posted by NiteGuy

Oh, good Lord.

Look, JoJo, I don't have a problem with Boehner wanting to limit or eliminate earmarks, although I think he's going to get more opposition to that idea than he thinks he will, and not all of it will be from Democrats. For instance, Michelle Bachmann has already stated that she doesn't believe asking for needed road or bridge construction from the budget of the Transportation Department should be considered an earmark. Sorry, Michelle baby, but requesting funds for specific projects in your state is the very definition of an earmark.

But this latest idea of Boehner's is just plain stupid. So he wants to what - call each of the major departments in front of the House, and have them all justify their existence, and their budgets? Isn't that what House Committees and Sub-Committees on these various departments are already there for? And Boehner wants to clog up the House floor with this stuff?

Second, I don't think it would work, just from a logistical vantage-point. There are some 17 different major departments in the government, assuming Boehner includes the CIA and FBI under Homeland Security, and doesn't break out each of the major branches of the military, although committees right now rarely, if ever, call all of the Joint Chiefs in at one time for budget meetings - they are usually treated as separate departments for the purposes of budgeting.

In any event, if all of these departments were to come into the House, one after the other, and spend say two weeks (a conservative figure) going through their budgets line item by line item, congress wouldn't get anything else done, for nearly two years, and still not have voted on a budget. Think I'm kidding?

Since about 1998, the House has been "in session" only about 110 days out of the year. That's 110 days of actual House Floor discussions, hearings, debates, votes and the like. Theoretically, they could almost get all of the departments done in one year, if they worked five days a week, up to their usual Christmas/Winter break period. That would give them 215 days at least, to go over all of these Department budgets.

But they don't have 215 days, what with spring, summer and fall breaks, (aka home district work periods), time for campaigning, and the fact that Congress is actually only "in session" three days a week and not five, and you begin to see the problem.

And that 170 days (2 weeks X 5 days per week X 17 departments) to go over the various department budgets would be just for that - department budgets. Meanwhile, no other independent agencies would get their budgets looked at. No other legislation of any kind would get written, debated or voted on. In fact, nothing else of any kind would get done, because the house would be spending all, and I mean all of it's time just approving budgets. Well, all of it's time, and then some.

And congress still wouldn't get all of them done in time to keep multiple departments from running out of money, without a series of continuing resolutions. Oh, wait. Sorry, They'd be so busy going over these individual budgets, that there would be no time left to draft, debate or vote on a continuing resolution.

Are you beginning to grasp the scope of the situation, yet, JoJo? Because I'm quite sure Boehner hasn't thought this idea through.

Actually, I don't think the idea is to cut the Committee out of the loop and go over these budgets line by line on the House floor. At any rate, Boehner is aware of the problem you mention:

But there are serious technical and procedural challenges to any approach that would subdivide the current dozen appropriations bills.

"We have to figure out how to accomplish that goal while still allowing the Appropriations Committee to function," said one senior Republican aide. "That's what the members of the transition team and conference are working through."

Ideally, some Republicans argue, the budget for each department of the federal government would come to the floor as a unique bill produced by the Appropriations Committee. Lawmakers would amend it and then vote on the final product. So, instead of a single bill funding the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments, those functions would be broken into three measures.

Another option would be to bring the bills to the floor in their current configurations but build procedural walls forcing lawmakers to consider the budgets for each department separately.

"At minimum, we want departments separated," one Republican leadership aide told POLITICO. "Freestanding agencies will be worked out as we go."

There's quite a bit that needs to be cut, and I would be so glad if the next Congress focused on finding obsolete, outdated, and otherwise unneeded budget parts in every department. I just doubt they'll really do a whole lot in that field. They'll rant about pet issues in the budget, and may reduce some of them, all the while making the Defense budget skyrocket, while cutting taxes, and increasing the debt even more. If these are the same Republicans as usual, we'll come out two years later with a set of much larger deficits than we went in with.

Like anyone who's gone over budget, the government needs to take a fine tooth comb and examine each and every expenditure to determine if it's necessary. If this clogs up the works, all the better. A government meticulously examining it's overspending is a government that has less time to enact more spending.

Originally Posted by Morgan

There's quite a bit that needs to be cut, and I would be so glad if the next Congress focused on finding obsolete, outdated, and otherwise unneeded budget parts in every department. I just doubt they'll really do a whole lot in that field. They'll rant about pet issues in the budget, and may reduce some of them, all the while making the Defense budget skyrocket, while cutting taxes, and increasing the debt even more. If these are the same Republicans as usual, we'll come out two years later with a set of much larger deficits than we went in with.

While it's not certain, in my mind, that the Republicans will succeed in reigning in the government, that is the promise they made and the reason they got the big wins in the last election. So far, even though they haven't taken control yet, it looks like they have their eye on the ball. We can only wait and see. Of course, if the Republicans keep working for their stated goals and if the Democrats mess things up, then the Democrats will be the ones to suffer. Their choice, I guess.

At any rate, if the Republicans...or the Democrats...screw around, the people will speak in 2012 just like they did in 2010.

Originally Posted by Lunchboxxy

Lets take that fine tooth comb and start with the defense budget.

The military certainly shouldn't be exempted, nor should it be singled out as the first priority. Fiscal responsibility is a non-partisan issue, stop trying to make it one, boxxy.