|
Weekly
Review
October
1,
2016
Stopgap
Spending
Bill
Opens
Door
for
Another
Year-End
Omnibus: On
Wednesday
night,
we
voted
on
a
short-term
spending
bill,
called
a
Continuing
Resolution
(CR),
that
will
fund
government
through
December
8th.
In
essence,
a
CR
takes
what
we
spent
last
year
and
authorizes
spending
at
the
same
monthly
rate
for
as
long
as
the
resolution
lasts
-
in
this
case,
just
over
2
months.
The
bill
passed
342
to
85,
and
I
voted
no.
Let
me
give
you
a
few
reasons
why
I
voted
as
I
did.
This
bill
opens
the
door
for
a
big
spending
party
in
December.
The
problem
is
that
it
will
be
with
your
money.
In
fact,
what
happens
when
you
combine
a
lame
duck
Congress
with
wanting
to
go
home
for
Christmas?
Answer...
the
taxpayer
gets
hurt.
Members
of
Congress
will
gladly
sacrifice
to
a
bit
more
spending
for
the
chance
to
leave
Washington
and
be
home
for
the
Holidays.
Combine
this
with
a
lame
duck
president,
and
you
end
up
with
a
spending
bias
on
steroids.
I
don't
know
what
it
will
look
like,
but
whatever
comes
for
funding
government
into
the
new
year
will
not
look
good
for
the
taxpayer
when
the
decisions
for
dealing
with
it
are
deferred
to
the
holiday
season.
The
bill
was
also
not
paid
for
-
which
means
part
of
its
cost
gets
added
straight
to
the
deficit
and
debt.
Since
this
constraint
wasn’t
in
there,
even
parts
of
the
bill
that
are
supposedly
paid
for
are
in
fact
not.
Indeed,
nearly
98%
of
the
claimed
spending
reductions
in
the
bill
are
creative
in
the
way
they
attempt
to
show
government
“savings.”
As
an
example,
the
bill
used
a
$7
billion
cut
from
the
Crime
Victims
account
as
a
“pay-for,”
-
the
problem
is
that
this
is
done
each
year.
Money
is
put
into
the
fund
annually,
only
to
be
borrowed
again
the
next
year.
This
is
hardly
what
most
would
consider
a
cut
to
government
that
pays
for
additions
to
its
size
elsewhere.
In
fact,
this
$7
billion
has
been
re-used
for
more
than
a
decade
to
pay
for
other
spending.
On
holding
the
line
on
budget
caps,
it
failed.
If
the
bill
lasted
a
whole
year,
it
would
spend
more
than
$1.2
trillion,
which
is
$102
billion
above
the
current
budget
caps.
To
put
that
number
in
perspective,
$102
billion
is
about
seven
times
the
size
of
the
state
budget
of
South
Carolina.
Going
over
by
this
amount
is
anything
but
a
rounding
error.
Of
course,
there
was
also
good
in
this
bill,
as
there
are
in
most
any.
For
example,
the
Military
Construction-VA
bill
made
its
way
through
so-called
“regular
order”
and
was
included
in
the
CR.
Zika
funding
was
included,
even
if
not
paid
for
and
far
above
the
House’s
number.
There
was
money
for
the
flood
in
Louisiana
and
14
other
named
disasters,
and
the
list
goes
on...but
on
the
whole,
the
bill
spent
more
than
it
should
and
set
us
up
for
what
I
can
only
imagine
will
be
a
spending
spree
in
December.
Accordingly,
I
voted
as
I
did.
September
26:
Prohibiting
Future
Ransom
Payments
to
Iran:
Last
week,
the
House
voted
on
H.R.
5931,
the
Prohibiting
Future
Ransom
Payments
to
Iran
Act,
a
bill
that
would
stop
the
administration
from
paying
ransoms
to
Iran.
The
bill
passed
254
to
163
with
bipartisan
support,
and
I
voted
yes.
As
I
wrote
back
in
August,
there
is
a
long-standing
American
policy
not
to
reward
terrorists
or
kidnappers
with
payments…and
if
the
ransom
payment
to
Iran
isn’t
breaching
that,
I
don’t
know
what
does.
While
the
release
of
four
Americans
is
certainly
something
to
celebrate,
rewarding
this
behavior
acts
as
an
incentive
to
continue
it.
Indeed,
two
Iranian
Americans
have
been
arrested
since
January
-
not
to
mention
several
others
from
different
countries.
Administration
officials
have
stated
that
the
timing
of
payments
going
into
Tehran
was
a
coincidence.
As
much
as
I
believe
that
people’s
motives
or
honesty
are
attacked
too
often
in
politics,
the
timing
of
the
release
and
the
payment
is
far
too
convenient
for
this
explanation
to
ring
true.
The
overarching
issue
to
me
is
the
lengths
that
the
administration
seemed
to
go
in
order
to
finalize
a
bad
deal.
From
weakened
demands
in
the
Iran
nuclear
deal
-
remember
the
“anywhere,
anytime”
inspection
demands
that
didn’t
happen
-
to
a
literal
cash
drop
of
hundreds
of
millions
in
non-US
currency
(because
any
transaction
with
Iran
in
US
dollars
is
illegal),
there
have
been
accommodations
across
the
board.
In
this
vein,
the
bill
last
week
represented
one
more
of
Congress’
attempts
to
push
back
against
the
ongoing
concessions
that
seem
to
have
been
part
and
parcel
of
the
president’s
Iran
deal.
September
27:
Low
Interest
Rates
Not
Equal
to
Sustained
Economic
Growth: Did
you
happen
to
catch
what
Mario
Draghi,
head
of
the
European
Central
Bank,
said
yesterday
in
Brussels? His
words
were
that,
“very
low
rates
for
a
very
long
time
do
have
side
effects”
and
that
low
rates
alone
were
not
enough
to
deliver
real
and
sustained
economic
growth
in
the
long
term.
He
went
on
to
talk
about
how
important
other
policies
were
to
complementing
any
central
bank’s
action.
I've
said
many
times
in
many
different
ways
that
we’re
sleepwalking
our
way
towards
a
financial
crisis,
and
I
think
that
this
slow
trickle
of
admission
by
central
bankers
that
indeed
they
can’t
carry
the
load
in
stimulating
the
economy
forever
should
serve
as
a
wake-up
call
to
policymakers
in
Washington
or
other
capitals
around
the
world.
Unless
we
have
debt
reduction,
tax
reform,
regulatory
reform,
and
a
number
of
other
things
changed
on
a
policy
front,
Draghi
will
be
proven
correct
in
his
recognition
of
the
inability
of
central
bank
maneuvering
to
create
sustained
economic
growth...and
we
will
also
see
the
profound
side
effects
in
keeping
rates
low
for
a
long
time.
Current
side
effects
include
robbing
every
saver
in
this
country
of
the
compounding
of
wealth
and
the
security
in
retirement
that
should
accompany
saving
and
sacrifice
over
their
lives.
Without
policy
change,
the
next
effect
that
we
will
soon
see
is
the
real
cost
of
government
debt
(that
has
been
masked
by
central
banks
keeping
rates
artificially
low),
as
economies
around
this
world
cool.
September
28:
House
Passes
the
Water
Resources
Development
Act:
The
House
just
finished
voting
on
the
Water
Resources
Development
Act.
I
voted
for
it,
and
it
passed
by
a
vote
of
399
to
25.
There’s
a
larger
conversation
about
the
full
bill
that
I’ll
get
to
a
tomorrow,
but
one
of
the
amendments
offered
was
of
particular
note,
and
I
wanted
to
touch
on
it.
The
Kildee/Moolenaar
amendment,
in
the
end,
would
provide
$170
million
in
emergency
funding
for
Flint,
Michigan
communities
with
lead-contaminated
drinking
water.
I
did
not
vote
for
this
amendment,
but
it
passed
by
a
vote
of
284
to
141.
You
can
read
more
on
the
amendment
here.
In
spite
of
the
addition
of
the
Flint
amendment,
the
other
95
percent
of
the
bill
had
a
lot
of
good
in
it.
As
it
relates
to
trade,
the
widening
of
the
Panama
Canal
will
prove
important,
as
it
impacts
trade
flows
to
and
from
our
country.
Infrastructure
on
this
front
is
vital,
and
accordingly
I
spoke
on
the
bill
this
week. Give
it
a
watch,
if
you’d
like
to
learn
a
bit
more
about
what
I
think
on
the
legislation.
|