Schumer caved in on the CR as I expected, but why are Republicans so happy?
Two Guidelines
- If AOC is unhappy, that’s generally a sign something good is happening
- If Rep. Massie is unhappy, that’s generally a sign something bad is happening
Those two guidelines are in conflict.
Background
Last week I was asked if I thought Schumer would agree to the Continuing Resolution. I replied “Of course, Democrats are not as stupid as Republicans when it comes to CRs. Parties that stop the government always end up losing.”
I made that comment after Schumer said he wouldn’t support the CR. It was an obvious bluff, and Schumer relented.
AOC’s Deep Sense of Outrage
Today, The Hill reports Ocasio-Cortez on Schumer Saying He’ll Vote to Advance CR: ‘Deep Sense of Outrage and Betrayal’
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) slammed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for saying he would vote to advance the House-passed continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government, which was largely opposed by Democrats in the lower chamber.
“There is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters late Thursday, referring to Schumer’s decision. “And this is not just about progressive Democrats, This is across the board — the entire party.”
Schumer, who previously said Senate Democrats would not provide the needed votes to advance the House bill, argued passing the CR is less about its contents but rather the looming threat of a government shutdown.
“The Republican bill is a terrible option,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address far too many of this country’s needs. But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option.”
His words echo the sentiments of Sen. John Fetterman who has also said he would vote in favor of the CR if it was approved in the House.
“We don’t agree with what’s been sent to us but, you know, if we withhold our votes, that is going to shut the government down,” Fetterman told host Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC Tuesday evening.
Ocasio-Cortez said their approach is “incorrect” and labeled their pending vote as a “slap in the face” to voters.
If all I had to go on was AOC’s anger, I would be pleased. But there are many more details.
For example, consider my post this morning. Hoot of the Day: House Republicans Suddenly Like Clean Energy Tax Breaks
Pack of Republican Now Support
- No Medicaid rollbacks
- More food assistance
- Expansion of Inflation Reduction Act provisions to capture methane
- Reinstatement of State and Local Tax deduction (primary benefit big blue states)
All the Republicans want more military spending. None of them want to discuss Social Security other than not taxing benefits which will dig a bigger SS hole.
Only one Representative stood against this nonsense. That would be hard-line deficit-hawk Thomas Massie.
A $2 Trillion Cut Compared to $86 Trillion in Spending
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) comments A $2 Trillion Cut Compared to $86 Trillion in Spending
The House-adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget resolution calls for up to $2 trillion in spending cuts as partial offsets for $4.8 trillion of tax cuts and spending increases. Even with those offsets, the ensuing reconciliation bill would add $2.8 trillion to deficits through 2034 before interest.
Viewed in context of the total amount of spending projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) over the next decade, however, a $2 trillion cut is not all that large. Over the ten years from FY 2025 through 2034, CBO projects the federal government will spend a total of nearly $86 trillion. That means a $2 trillion cut would only represent about 2.3 percent of total projected spending.
If lawmakers feel they must have their $4.0 to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and tax cut extensions as well as their $300 billion in increased spending for national defense and border security, then they should come up with an additional $2.8 trillion of spending cuts or revenue increases to ensure we don’t unnecessarily add to our already recklessly high national debt.
$2.0 Trillion in Cuts and $4.8 Trillion in Additions
And republicans are happy?
Well, two weren’t. Senator Rand Paul and Rep Massie.
What’s in the House’s Full-Year Continuing Resolution?
The CRFB addresses the question What’s in the House’s Full-Year Continuing Resolution?
The full-year CR is roughly equivalent to FY 2024 funding with a few anomalies, including the removal of all Congressionally Directed Spending (“earmarks”) and other smaller shifts in funding between appropriations titles (described in the table below). The net result is a $10 billion increase in funding above FY 2024 levels and roughly flat total funding between the previous two CRs and this one.
Budget Authority Allocations by Appropriations Title
Importantly, the full-year CR would put both defense and nondefense budget authority (BA) under the FRA’s Section 101 caps for 2025 by about $2.7 billion each. As a result, we estimate that direct outlay savings would total roughly $5.4 billion over the next decade. Relative to a baseline where Congress appropriates at the full level of the Section 101 FRA caps, we estimate that this bill would result in discretionary BA that is $61 billion lower than that baseline through 2034. This would result in $54 billion of outlay savings through 2034.
The FRA included a second set of caps (Section 102) that are put in place if Congress has not agreed to full-year appropriations by December 31, 2024. Those caps do not become binding until April 30, 2025, at which point a CR with appropriations above those caps would require a sequester to bring defense or nondefense spending in line with them. As a result, CBO’s current baseline assumes the Section 102 caps are binding for base discretionary spending, and appropriating above those caps would technically increase CBO’s baseline projections.
Lawmakers have reportedly agreed with the Administration (which would order such a sequester) to consider a full-year CR as full-year appropriations, which would make the Section 101 caps binding. However, if that were not to be the case, the defense total would violate the Section 102 caps and thus require a sequester of $42.7 billion to bring it into compliance.
Budget Authority in FY 2025 Under the CR vs FRA
The full-year CR would also extend $20.2 billion of IRS funding rescissions from the FY 2024 appropriations. CBO estimates that the reduction in revenues attributable to the recession will total $66 billion over the FY 2025 to 2034 period. After accounting for the decreased IRS spending, this amounts to a $46 billion deficit increase. Additionally, the bill continues $15 billion of phony CHIMPs that would result in no outlay savings, which add to its costs. Combined with the savings from lower appropriations in 2025, we estimate a net cost of $7 billion through 2034.
Smoke and Mirrors
As best as I can tell, there are at best no real savings in this CR.
A bit of this got shifted to a bit of that.
One of the things AOC is whining about is the reduction in the VA budget. Republicans are sure to latch on to that and fix it.
I am told the CR results in a big decrease in FY 2025 second half spending. But I fail to see it in these numbers.
10-Year Impact
The above chart shows the net impact over two years of bragging about $2.0 Trillion in Cuts while Ignoring $4.8 Trillion in Additions
And republicans are happy?
What a sorry Joke. I side with Massie.
If you think DOGE will fix this spending problem, then show me the details in an actual budget, passed by Congress, without absurd assumptions everyone knows are pure bullsheet.
Related Posts
March 13, 2025: Hello DOGE, Judge Orders Thousands to Be Rehired, What Will That Cost?
Chalk up another loss for Trump in the Courts. Wins have been few, losses many.
March 13, 2025: The Amazing “Success” of Trump’s 2018 Aluminum Tariffs in One Picture
I hope you can take a bit of headline sarcasm because the true story follows.
March 14, 2025: Hoot of the Day: House Republicans Suddenly Like Clean Energy Tax Breaks
21 House Republicans now like Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act incentives.
Lutnick Says Tariffs Can Eliminate the IRS and Balance the Budget
Of all the lunatic ideas on how Republicans will balance the budgets at the top of the list is tariffs.
I did the math on that idea.
We would need to faithfully collect 200 percent tariffs on everything, with of no trade frictions, no retaliations, full compliance, and no reductions in imports.
It’s even stupider than the above sentence implies. For discussion, please see Lutnick Says Tariffs Can Eliminate the IRS and Balance the Budget