We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill
Navigate

Blog Home

NTU Home Page

Blog FAQs

About "Government Bytes!"

Support NTU

 
Subscribe
Sign up with NTU's Taxpayer Action Center





 
Blog Contributors
Andrew Moylan
Director of Government Affairs

Dan Barrett
Policy Analyst

David Keating
Senior Counselor

Demian Brady
Senior Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Terrell
Guest Blogger

Jeff Dircksen
Director of Congressional Analysis

Jordan Forbes
Federal Government Affairs Manager

Joshua Culling
State Government Affairs Manager

Kristina Rasmussen
Guest Blogger

Kristine Tuinstra
State Policy Analyst

NTU Gov
Government Affairs & Communications Associate

Paul Gessing
Guest Blogger

Pete Sepp
Vice President for Communications

Rachael Slobodien
Communications Manager

Ross Kaminsky
Blogger

Sam Batkins
Guest Blogger

Tom Horne
Policy Associate

Send to a Friend
Email:
Send to Friend
The Official Blog of National Taxpayers Union

House Appropriations Sends Its Storm Troopers

Posted by Boddington - April 06, 2006

By now you may have heard that House Leadership had to postpone consideration of the budget resolution until after the upcoming recess. Why you ask? Because Jerry Lewis and the House Appropriations Committee blew talks up today because the budget actually budgets for emergencies, and Leadership is attempting to provide conservatives with an added way to ensure that the fund doesn’t become some sort of slush fund. But the Committee refuses to change the way they do business in spending money. Here is an email from Frank Cushing, Staff Director of the Committee, to the Committee Members:
Folks:

As you know, the Budget Resolution contains a so-called "Rainy Day Fund" that would REQUIRE the Budget Committee to approve non-defense related emergency spending in excess of the amount stated within the Budget Resolution. The threshold number plucked out of the sky by the Budget Committee for both mandatory and discretionary emergencies is $4.3 B, which, according to Dale's calculations, is at least $3 B less than the ten year (median) average for just natural disaster spending. When we have discussed this with Leadership their only response is that "it can be adjusted in conference". They missed the point: we want it out.

What Leadership apparently wanted was to not cede control of this process to either us or the Budget Committee. So their response was to develop yet another procedural hurdle for us alone (even though the authorizers can dip into the emergency kitty, they are not subject to this particular procedural hurdle). This procedural loop for us (which is attached) was drafted no later than last Thursday but was not shared with us until just before Noon today. After much internal discussion and trips back and forth to the Parliamentarians, we have decided that what they are suggesting for us is at least as bad as what the Budget Committee did, and
probably worse.

ACCORDINGLY, Chairman Lewis has instructed us to inform you that, unless the Rainy Day Fund and this new Point of Order are dropped/not included through action of the Rules Committee tonight, he will NOT SUPPORT passage of the RULE and/or the BUDGET RESOLUTION tomorrow. He also requested that you inform your Subcommittee Chairman of his position in this regard and asks that they likewise support the Committee. We will be notifying other Members of the Committee (both sides of the aisle) as well as Leadership that we are taking this action.

Please call if you have any questions.
Frank

My guess is that given that Congress just spent billions on emergency Katrina relief, most Americans probably think it perfectly reasonable to at least try and anticipate some of the spending likely to ensue from upcoming natural disasters. But nobody ever said the Appropriators were particularly reasonable.

Thoughts?   Add Comment -


Cicero said on Apr 07 2006 at 8:41am
a billion here....a billion there


said on Apr 07 2006 at 10:12am
Yet another case for term limits. I'm glad Republicans self-impose term limits on Committee charipersons, but the longer appropriators stay, the more money they spend.


said on Apr 09 2006 at 7:51am
God, Republican politicians suck as much as Democrat politicians.


Publius said on Apr 13 2006 at 11:15pm
A must read
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008226