and you think the federal government should be limited to the enumerated powers put in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers, then the cromnibus is an abomination.Posted on 12/14/2014 6:43:21 AM PST by Kaslin
So what should libertarians, Reagan conservatives, and other advocates of smaller government think of the “cromnibus” spending bill?
The answer depends on your benchmark. If you dislike insider deals, pork-barrel spending, and you think the federal government should be limited to the enumerated powers put in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers, then the cromnibus is an abomination.
But if you look at where we are right now and you think victory is achieved whenever we can shrink the burden of government spending and limit Washington’s power over the nation, then the cromnibus is a victory.
So is the glass half full or half empty?
Let’s start by looking at the optimistic case, which is ably summarized in what Peter Roff wrote for U.S. News and World Report.
…the “cromnibus” legislative vehicle to fund most of the federal government through September 30, 2015 is a major victory for the conservatives…the combined continuing resolution and omnibus funding bill [hence the term “cromnibus”] maintains the Ryan-Murray spending caps of $521 billion for defense and $492 billion for non-defense spending. …It blocks funding of the risk corridors that, under the Affordable Care Act, could lead to a government bailout of the insurance companies…while cutting the funds for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which is the body that would be recommending any rationing of health care) by $10 million. The bill also cuts funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by $60 million, which is the fifth consecutive year the agency’s budget has been cut and may finally convince the bureaucrats who run the place they cannot go beyond what they are legally authorized to do without congressional approval. And it hits the Internal Revenue Service particularly hard, cutting its allocation of federal dollars by $345.6 million, prohibiting it from targeting organizations because of the way they chose to exercise their First Amendment rights or on an ideological basis… There’s more, but the general drift of the thing is toward smaller, leaner, more transparent, more honest government than has been the case over the last six years.
There’s a lot to like in what Peter wrote. I like the spending caps, even if they’re too high. And I unambiguously like imposing some fiscal restraint on the EPA and IRS.
But now let’s shift to a pessimistic assessment. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner is a leading crusader against corporate welfare and he is appropriately disgusted that the annual spending bill became a vehicle for special-interest favors
Cromnibus was a fruit basket of special-interest provisions that K Street had been requesting for years. If you read to the very end of the bill — page 1,602 of 1,603 — you would find a section titled “Modification of Treatment of Certain Health Organizations.” This provision would provide protection from an Obamacare provision for exactly one entity: Blue Cross Blue Shield. …Or look at page 1,153, which reauthorizes a federal agency whose job is to subsidize American-owned foreign businesses and the banks that finance them. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation extends taxpayer-backed loans and guarantees to U.S. companies when they set up shop overseas. OPIC is naked corporate welfare. …Bills like Cromnibus, crafted in darkness and presented as must-pass legislation, allow the special interests to get what they want. A free and open debate on these issues is what the country needs.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Tim is completely correct about the cromnibus being business-as-usual sleaze and corruption. There’s no question that a bunch of lobbyists were big winners.
So who’s right about the cromnibus, Peter or Tim?
I hate to sound like a mealy-mouth, finger-in-the-wind politician, but they’re both correct.
The cromnibus fight turned out like the appropriations fight of 2011, the debt limit fight of 2011, and the fiscal cliff fight of 2012, all of which had some disappointing features and some encouraging features.
In other words, we’re dealing with the reality of divided government. Even next year, when Harry Reid no longer controls the Senate, it will be very difficult to win big victories.
Let’s say that Republicans decide to pursue aggressive policies such as fundamental tax reform and genuine entitlement reform.
I’ll definitely applaud, but – at the risk of stating the obvious – does anybody think such legislation would attract enough support to overcome a veto from the White House?
The bottom line is that the cromnibus was a typical kiss-your-sister compromise and people, after weighing the pros and cons, probably like or dislike the outcome depending on the issues that matter most to them.
If you first and foremost don’t like lobbyist deals, then you are going to be unhappy. Likewise, you won’t be happy if your main goal is stopping the President’s executive amnesty.
But if your big issue areas are reining in the EPA or IRS, then you’ll presumably be – on net – cheerful. Similarly, if you care about preserving spending caps, you’ll view cromnibus as a win.
My view, for what it’s worth, is that Republicans did a decent job, but could have achieved much more if they were willing to hold firm on certain issues, even if it meant Obama and/or Reid decided to shut down the government.
But for reasons I still don’t understand, GOP bigwigs think they lost the shutdown fights of 1995 and 2013. And so long as they hold to that view, they’ll be limited in what they can achieve.
P.S. Since I mentioned that the cromnibus contains some long-overdue cuts to the IRS budget, here’s an amusing cartoon from Jerry Holbert that reminds us why they don’t deserve more of our money.
Definitely something to add to our collection of IRS humor.
And why would we need to kiss our sister when we crushed the midterms?
A victory for politicians, maybe.
It’s a complete and total loser for everyone else.
But if you look at where we are right now and you think victory is achieved whenever we can shrink the burden of government spending and limit Washington’s power over the nation, then the cromnibus is a victory. …Grasp them straws. Hard.
Whatever this bill is, it was not a dire necessity that it be rushed through a lame duck Congress.
It is an insult to the voters that made their wishes known on November 4 and a direct assault on the people in this country that want to stop this foolishness.
Call your congresscritter. I gave mine a call at his DC office, the staffer was one degree off from condescending and tried to lie to me that the congressman did not support amnesty or the ACA yet voted Yea on this cromnibus because it was a “strategy” for 2015. They are full to their eyeballs in BS and their staffers will get almost hostile when you call out their boss for being a liar and having no backbone.
BTW, I let the staffer know that in 2016 I will be working my butt off to ensure he never gets elected again, fool me once and all that.
I’ve done this over and over again. They just don’t effing care what you think. They are lashed at the hips thinking you’ll relent and vote Republican because Democrats are worse. In my book anymore, they aren’t. Not one damn bit of difference.
That's a positive.
It's obvious that the current power structure on both sides of the aisles wanted to have their way one last time before the newly elected members came in and tried to enforce some discipline.
The over riding goal of passing this bill before the new Congress is seated was to give the existing power base a full year of control, influence and payback for legacy cronies before the new and more reform minded representatives gain some influence and control.
For the House, they have usurped a full year out of the new House reps influence.
Cromnibus sounds like something Romney would do, or a crony. It just sounds bad. Like the infamous Porkulous.
John Boehner and Mitch turtle have to lose their leadership positions come January.
Also critical is what the glass is half full of!!
Make no mistake, they set this date for expiration so it could be pushed through by a lame duck congress. They wanted an excuse, and judging by this article, they will get it.
I’d like some of what this guy has been smoking. Flaks gotta keep on flakking I guess.
Cromnibus was a huge win for the uniparty and its cronies. Same as always. For everybody else who has to pay the bill it was an unmitigated defeat.
The last time the Republicans caved on a shutdown was during the last daze of the Nixon administration when the same bunch of socialist radicals defunded South Viet Nam and prohibited air strikes which would have destroyed the VC clogging the roads. Saigon would still be Saigon not Ho city.
The result was hundreds of thousands South Viet Namese died wasting the lives of American servicemen and women trashed on the suposition that money would be better spent for handouts here.
This guy is on crack. There is nothing good about a lame duck Congress giving away the store before the new owner takes over.
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. . .Obama, himself, has said exactly this. . .he was quite open about it in past interviews while a U.S. Senator.
Winners, Obama, The Big money donors, Wall street.
Losers,the american people
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.