Politics As Usual in Democratic Senate
It's easy to see why congressional approval ratings have reached historic lows. The latest spending fight is a perfect example of the politics-as-usual -- and, even worse -- budgeting-as-usual practices that have undermined trust in the federal government and created record deficits.
Twice already this year, congressional Democrats have brought the government to the brink of a shutdown due to their refusal to agree to the sensible spending cuts everyone knows are urgently needed. The first showdown occurred in April over the 2011 budget, while the second took place in August regarding the debt ceiling. In each case, House Republicans passed numerous pieces of legislation that would have cut spending and kept the government running only to see the bills fail in a Democratic Senate committed to maintaining ruinous spending levels. In both instances, conservatives eventually succeeded in achieving historically significant spending cuts, but the uncertainty created by liberals' intransigence took its toll on the economy and on taxpayers' patience.
Conventional wisdom held that legislators would not subject fragile markets and a disenchanted public to another shutdown threat. The media predicted easy passage for a funding bill necessary to keep the government running past the end of the fiscal year on September 30. After all, the new annual spending level had already been agreed to under the debt ceiling arrangement negotiated in August. But that didn't stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from exploiting the danger of a shutdown and the need for disaster aid to fight for $1.6 billion in funding for nonessential "green" technology programs.
The deadline for passing the government funding bill, called a continuing resolution, happened to coincide with the deadline for approving new disaster funding. FEMA's funds have been depleted by a tough year of storms, flooding and wildfires. By mid-September, FEMA's disaster-relief fund had dwindled to $212 million and was expected to run out of money entirely by the end of the month.
The sensible course of action for a nation attempting to reverse three consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits would be to offset the emergency funding by finding spending cuts in another part of the bloated federal budget. Accordingly, House Republicans passed two separate bills to provide disaster aid, offset by cutting part of the funding allocated for a program to promote electric cars, as well as reducing funding for the initiative that brought us the Solyndra controversy.
These bills passed the House well in advance of the deadlines to keep both FEMA and the federal government running. Senate Democrats promptly rejected them, insisting that spending for their favored programs not be reduced, even to pay for disaster aid. The issue was only resolved because FEMA eventually reduced its request, allowing Congress to pass a temporary government funding bill and postpone the issue of FEMA funding and the related spending offsets. But the implications of this episode are discouraging.
If the United States were enjoying a budget surplus and booming economy, we could possibly afford both to pay for disaster recovery and to gamble taxpayer money on questionable programs. However, a 9.1 percent unemployment rate and $14 trillion national debt make it imperative that we prioritize. It's very troubling that Harry Reid and congressional Democrats still don't accept this. Let's hope they have a better grasp on reality by the time the joint deficit reduction committee announces its recommendations in November.