With a new U.S. House Speaker in place, Republicans now have a quick opportunity to re-unify, rallying around how they handle the level of massive federal spending and borrowing.
They should revive the "automatic continuing resolution" ("automatic CR" or "ACR") plan that conservative and moderate GOP factions, in both the House and the Senate, have embraced in the past. It would provide the leverage that has been missing from efforts to control runaway spending.
Currently, whenever Congress fails to pass spending bills on time, all spending lapses and "non-essential" government services are halted.
Perversely, this gives the advantage to big spenders because the media helps them demonize conservatives as wanting no government instead of smaller government.
They are falsely called extremists who would halt things such as Social Security checks.
In contrast, an automatic ACR keeps federal offices open indefinitely, BUT at reduced levels of spending. It fulfills the constitutional requirement that Congress must appropriate all funds. Those who want sky-high spending lose their leverage and can no longer conceal their true motive—bigger government.
It differs from the recent continuing resolutions that are short-term and temporary, like the current version that expires November 17. That approach has failed to provide leverage to reduce spending, which is the root of the inflation that is decimating American families.
Since 1977, in all but three years Congress has enacted one or more short-term CR’s. Those become an annual circus that dominates Washington and fails to rein-in spending. This accumulates into a national debt now over $33.6-trillion. This debt dwarfs the annual U.S. economy (about $27-trillion) and is over $250-thousand for each taxpayer.
Certainly it seems counter-intuitive that keeping government “open” would help deficit hawks, but the key is that an automatic CR must NOT create any increase in spending.
The idea is not new and has a strong history.
In the 105th Congress, when appropriations for fiscal year 1997 were not completed on time, Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John McCain led an effort to insert ACR language in a supplemental appropriations act.
In the House, the late Rep. George Gekas, R-Pa., led the effort.
Congress actually approved that ACR. Then, when President Bill Clinton vetoed it because he wanted to spend more, the battle lines for once were clear.
Recently, ACR legislation has been filed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind. (with eight fellow Republicans co-sponsoring); and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C. A version by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. has attracted 19 bipartisan co-sponsors.
A House version by Rep. Jodely Arrington, R-Texas, has attracted seven co-sponsors, including Democrats as well as Republicans.
Historically, similar measures have won support from a litany of lawmakers, expanding beyond conservative Republicans.
Past advocates have included Sens. Barbara Mikulski, Jim Bunnings, Ben Cardin, D-Md., (when he was in the House), Reps. Jim Nussle, Cliff Stearns, Tom Davis, David Dreier, and Porter Goss.
Weaker versions are also proposed, coming from both parties.
Some permit "adjustments for inflation," which is shorthand for automatic hikes in spending. Others call for "such amounts as may be necessary."
Any version of an ACR that allows a spending increase should be taboo.
The ideal ACR provides ongoing funds at a reduced level, whether 90%, 95%, or even 99%.
One Republican attentive to this is Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who strategically advocates a full-year CR rather than briefer time spans, because this would activate a key provision in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The GOP negotiated and got President Biden to sign this.
This law’s Section 102 provides for an automatic 1% spending reduction on Jan. 1, 2024, but only if a continuing resolution remains in force at that time.
However, the provision is not permanent. It applies only to fiscal years 2024 and 2025, and its spending reductions are lost if Congress thereafter approves higher levels.
Massie called this provision for 2024 and 2025 the "redeeming portion" of the debt limit legislation that Republicans agreed to with Biden.
Holding the line at 99% of prior spending is not ideal, but saving 1% in the $6-trillion federal budget amounts to $60-billion.
Consecutive years of 1% reductions can compound to produce significant results. Once known as the Penny Plan approach, it was promoted by Rep. Tim Penny, D-Minn.
Although a lack of gumption can always defeat spending controls, an ACR at reduced levels provides a stronger way to hold the line. It changes the default setting to disfavor higher amounts.
Willpower is key, but so is changing the political dynamic. Realizing that "government shutdowns" have failed to provide leverage, it becomes insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over. Taming the spending monster will help all Americans by reducing inflation, and by lessening the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren.
Former U.S. Congressman Ernest Istook served 14 years on the House Appropriations Committee.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.