Tuesday, five Republican Representatives went against their own party, opposing a spending package full of Pentagon appropriations that was supposed to make its way to the House floor.
This from reason.com.
Per The New York Times:
One of the dissenters, Rep. Ralph Norman (SC), said he was opposing all GOP spending initiatives until he received a commitment from [House Speaker Kevin] McCarthy that the House would return federal spending to pre-pandemic levels without any budgetary gimmicks.
Norman was joined by Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Dan Bishop (NC), Ken Buck (CO), and Matt Rosendale (MT), who together stymied attempts to bring the new spending package to a vote on the House floor. Though the budgetary infighting is a welcome change and could in fact bring about good results for libertarians concerned about runaway defense spending, it could also backfire.
Axios reported:
In an ironic twist of fate, frustrated Republicans are now growing more open to cutting a deal with Democrats—the worst possible outcome for the conservative hardliners agitating for deeper spending cuts.
Still, it’s encouraging to see some representatives opposing the fiscal profligacy that has long plagued Congress. The September 30 deadline for funding the government looms. If a deal cannot be reached by then, obviously, the government will enter another shutdown.
The government most recently shut down in December 2018/January 2019, when [President Trump and House communists/globalists] found themselves at an impasse involving funding [the president’s] U.S.-Mexico border wall. (For more on government shutdowns, read Eric Boehm’s piece: Is a Government Shutdown Better Than More Reckless Borrowing?)
The following from thehill.com.
The five joined the Left in bringing the final vote against the rule to 214-212. This prevented the House from debating the legislation on the floor and from eventually voting on whether to pass it.
It’s rare for lawmakers to block their own party from advancing legislation. Votes on rules—which govern debate on legislation—are usually routine matters. The majority party typically supports the effort and the minority party opposes it, regardless of lawmakers’ feelings on the underlying bill.
But in a narrow majority, the right-wing has been flexing its muscles in demanding steeper spending cuts as part of the appropriations process.
At the center of the conservatives’ opposition is their demand to see spending levels cut across all 12 appropriations bills. The coalition of Republicans have suggested that they will hold up approving the appropriations bills until the GOP leadership meets their demands.
Rep. Bishop said in a statement:
I took down the rule—as I vowed I would—because the Conference continues not to have moved 12 appropriations bills at the spending level agreed to in January. I assume leadership believes me now.
Rep. Norman told reporters ahead of the vote that he:
[P]lanned to oppose the rule because leadership has not yet presented the top-line numbers across all 12 appropriations bills.
Reps. Biggs and Rosendale also called on Republican leadership to reveal the top-line numbers—a request that conservatives have been making for months.
Rep. Biggs told reporters:
Because we’re sitting, we’re sitting here and they’re throwing one bill out that’s that they plussed up and they we don’t even know what the top-line numbers for the entire packages and so they should be holding stuff back until we all know kind of what the top line is and get those done. They didn’t get it done.
For months, I have made it clear that in order for me to support the appropriations bills, we need to see the total value for all 12 bills. Leadership has yet to provide us with that number, which is why I voted against the rule this afternoon! Why are they keeping it a secret?
This is another setback for McCarthy amid opposition from hardline conservatives. The House has just less than two weeks to approve government funding to avoid a shutdown.
Final thoughts: Eventually fiscal irresponsibility and frivolous spending must be stopped. At some point ignoring the U.S. state of bankruptcy will no longer be possible. Why not now, here?
