This blog contains some very interesting assumptions and premises. It opens with this:
I am not sure the Omnibus Bill is necessarily the disaster everyone thinks it is.
First, let me set a stage of Constitutional Originalism, first. This idea of packing everything into a single monstrosity of a bill is not even close to what was originally intended by the Constitution, or the Framers who wrote it, in 1787. Then again, neither was internal expenditures.
In Article I., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution only requires Congress to meet once each year. It doesn't say for how long. Congress's authorities did not include any internal issues. Those all belonged to the States. Unless the country was at war, or needed legislation regarding trade with other nations, or for Congress to write legislation to mediate a dispute between the States, the Congressmen were not really needed in Washington D.C.
In other words, most expenditures were to be left to the states, not the federal government. 200 years later we fine 85% of federal spending to be unconstitutional expanding government into our daily lives.
The blog then goes into some interesting discussions of budgetary policy and points out some interesting differences between a "budget" and the omnibus "spending bill." Well worth reading.
And then it ponders if the establishment members of Congress purposely crafted the monstrosity to make the president look bad and give them ammunition to gain power in the mid term elections.
Or, was the president aware of what the Faux Republicans were doing and went along with it knowing full well he was going to spend the money the way he promised during his campaign?
In other words, did he play Congress?
Is he going to "slow play" some of that money or maybe move it to other uses?
Only time will tell and I think those of us who support this president will end up very pleased.
Very much more of this blog @ Political Pistachio: Omnibus versus Budget
I am not sure the Omnibus Bill is necessarily the disaster everyone thinks it is.
First, let me set a stage of Constitutional Originalism, first. This idea of packing everything into a single monstrosity of a bill is not even close to what was originally intended by the Constitution, or the Framers who wrote it, in 1787. Then again, neither was internal expenditures.
In Article I., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution only requires Congress to meet once each year. It doesn't say for how long. Congress's authorities did not include any internal issues. Those all belonged to the States. Unless the country was at war, or needed legislation regarding trade with other nations, or for Congress to write legislation to mediate a dispute between the States, the Congressmen were not really needed in Washington D.C.
In other words, most expenditures were to be left to the states, not the federal government. 200 years later we fine 85% of federal spending to be unconstitutional expanding government into our daily lives.
The blog then goes into some interesting discussions of budgetary policy and points out some interesting differences between a "budget" and the omnibus "spending bill." Well worth reading.
And then it ponders if the establishment members of Congress purposely crafted the monstrosity to make the president look bad and give them ammunition to gain power in the mid term elections.
Or, was the president aware of what the Faux Republicans were doing and went along with it knowing full well he was going to spend the money the way he promised during his campaign?
In other words, did he play Congress?
Is he going to "slow play" some of that money or maybe move it to other uses?
Only time will tell and I think those of us who support this president will end up very pleased.
Very much more of this blog @ Political Pistachio: Omnibus versus Budget
