House Freedom Caucus Furious Over Johnson-Schumer Spending Deal
Rep. Cloud: “If House Republicans are ever going to save our Republic, we need to stop being so afraid of fighting the important battles.”
The House Freedom Caucus will not support the spending agreement between House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Steve Schumer to avoid a government shutdown.
It’s even worse than we thought.
Don’t believe the spin. Once you break through typical Washington math, the true total programmatic spending level is $1.658 trillion — not $1.59 trillion.
This is total failure. https://t.co/QBok5lpa6E
— House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) January 7, 2024
The deal would establish an overall spending level of $1.59 trillion in fiscal year 2024, reflecting the bipartisan budget deal struck last year by President Joe Biden and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Johnson, R-La., told colleagues in a letter. The breakdown is $886 billion for the military and $704 billion for nondefense spending, Johnson said.
Johnson added that there will be “key modifications” to the agreement in order to reduce nonmilitary spending with a $16 billion “offset.” That includes $6.1 billion in unused Covid funds and $10 billion in IRS money under the Inflation Reduction Act, Johnson said.
“While these final spending levels will not satisfy everyone, and they do not cut as much spending as many of us would like, this deal does provide us a path to: 1) move the process forward; 2) reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives, instead of last year’s Schumer-Pelosi omnibus; and 3) fight for the important policy riders included in our House FY24 bills,” Johnson wrote in his letter to colleagues.
The House Freedom Caucus is not wrong:
The intrigue: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a joint statement that the non-discretionary spending figure is actually $772.7 billion, which would bring the total spending topline to $1.66 trillion.
- Schumer’s office pointed to an additional $69 billion as part of a “side agreement” between former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Biden in the debt ceiling deal to account for the discrepancy.
Republicans agreeing to spending levels $69 billion higher than last summer's debt ceiling "deal", with no significant policy wins is nothing but another loss for America. At some point, having the House majority has to matter. Stop funding this spending with an open border!
— Congressman Bob Good (@RepBobGood) January 7, 2024
The Republicans have a two-seat majority in the House since Majority Leader Steve Scalise won’t return until next month due to cancer treatment.
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Tim Burchett (R-TN) said they won’t vote for the agreement.
Democrats will have to vote yes on the agreement in order for it to pass.
Rep. Michael Cloud has a great point. I’m not a Republican, and I do not think they’re as fiscally conservative as they claim, but still. STOP SPENDING.
There are many reasons for bad spending deals in Washington. Poor planning, addiction to spending, etc.
One of them is aversion to conflict.
If House Republicans are ever going to save our Republic, we need to stop being so afraid of fighting the important battles.…
— Congressman Michael Cloud (@RepCloudTX) January 8, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dear God, Johnson is worse than McCarthy
At least McCarthy didn’t wear his religion on his sleeve and everyone knew he could be bought
Two people I watch like hawks: those who wear their religion on their sleeves, and those with the biggest flag lapel pins.
I have no problem with someone who wears his religion on his sleeve, but I do take issue with anyone who fails to live up to his promises.
But how do you feel about big-ass-flag-pin wearers?
If such people are truly as patriotic as their pins would have us believe, and live by our founding principles, they can wear those pins all they like. If they are frauds who are more like Establishment RINO’s or Biden and 99% of the Democrats in Congress, then I’d prefer them to go without.
And he’s going to keep so called “side-agreements” McCarthy made with Schumer? WTF?
Uh, there are no real cuts. They’re basically fully funding all the ills of the Biden agenda, from open borders to DOJ weaponized justice. But what can we expect? it’s not like the republicans hold the branch of Congress from which spending bills have to originate.
The origination clause is irrelevant, the House has to pass some bill, and once it does the senate can amend it any way it likes. The original bill doesn’t even have to be about spending; so the only way the House could use the origination clause to stop spending it doesn’t like would be not to pass any bills at all, on any topic. And that’s obviously not practical. Laws are necessary. For that matter spending is necessary; the only argument is over how much, but once you pass a bill, even for $1, you’ve originated it and the senate can amend it to $10 trillion.
No. Not irrelevant. Actually in the Constitution. Look it up. But my broader point, in a facetious comment, was that republicans control the house (I think that’s still one half of Congress but maybe that’s changed too) and they’re apparently doing nothing with that spending power but fund the Biden agenda.
Yes, irrelevant. I just showed you why. I’m very familiar with the constitution, and with the origination clause. It’s irrelevant. It doesn’t restrict the senate’s power in any way, because the senate will always have some bill that originated in the house, which it can amend to its heart’s desire.
Milhouse is right. I remember one bill in the late 80’s that was passed by the Senate, amending a House bill. The beginning of the amendment read, “Replace all after the enacting clause as follows: …” then didn’t bother amending any of the House language – it replaced everything. I argued as you are now and lost.
“would be not to pass any bills at all, on any topic. And that’s obviously not practical. Laws are necessary.”
I will dispute that. Although it certainly is how things are done these days, constantly passing new laws is not what Congress should be doing. Were not the laws passed last year, or 5 or 10 years ago good enough?
Will only these new laws make possible whatever it is they cover? No, I think we could all do very nicely with all the thousands and thousands of laws already passed…. perhaps even do with fewer. Radical idea, right?
Legislators are doing nothing more than promoting bills handed to them by their staffers, who have been handed the text given them by lobbyists. It is a system that works very well for pols and the people who buy pols, but not for the country.
Agreed. Actually, they should start repealing laws, not enacting new ones.
It’s not just how things are done these days, it’s how things have been done ever since we have had legislatures. There are always new laws that need to be passed. Things change, and even if the old laws were good enough then, they’re not good enough now. Not to mention that often the old laws were never good, so they need to be repealed. You want that, right? Well, guess what? Repealing a law requires passing a law to do so. And once the House has passed a law to repeal some law it doesn’t like, the Senate is free to amend it to spend $1 trillion.
Also, appropriations (which are laws) have to be passed every year. Even if you’re completely happy with last year’s appropriation, you still have to pass a new one. It can be a verbatim copy of last year’s one that you liked so much, but it still has to be a new law. And again, once the House passes it the Senate can amend it.
Johnson has some explaining to do.
So does Gaetz.
Nah, Goetz did the right. Unfortunately it’s impossible to actually get good people in charge of anything in Washington. The real answer to this is just to burn it all to the ground. It’s past saving
He blew it up, he has a responsibility to rebuild it. Johnson has been worse than McCarthy. Gaetz, if he has any integrity at all (which I doubt, and which he has yet to demonstrate) should be calling for a vote to vacate the chair.
No border protection?
THIS SHOULD BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL!!!!
Also, do not fund Mr. 10% ‘s Ukrainian bribes with USA tax dollars!!!
Some of that fine Republican opposition, folks.
Guys there will not be a reduction in spending back to pre Covid levels; IOW a return to FY 2019 budget levels. Not a chance of it happening with Biden controlling the Executive Branch and Schumer controlling the Senate. That is the real target which would make actual cuts to spending v mere reduction in growth of spending.
Then there should be a default. They shouldn’t go along with that pedophile and that crooked bastard in the Senate
There wouldn’t be a ‘default’ if no agreement is reached. On April 30 if no new budget or CR is operating then an automatic sequestration takes effect.
FWIW a default means the Fed Govt not paying those who hold US Treasury instruments. That is not gonna happen yet. Far more likely is the Fed Reserve increasing the money supply going back close to zero rates and simply inflating the debt away; which to be fair many would call a form of default.
Why would the Fed Reserve do that? The Treasury must refinance roughly 35% of the Debt in the next couple of years and the current higher rates make that untenable for the budget. As an example the debt service in FY 24 will exceed the entire DoD budget. That’s more than $1 Trillion just for debt service now. Add in the impact of quadrupled interest costs for another $12-14 Trillion in debt and the pain comes fast. Paying the interest will crowd out other spending.
You won’t find a bigger deficit hawk than me. It’s obscene and the folks who put us here from all political parties including voters deserve blame. Unfortunately I don’t think anything meaningful is gonna change the trajectory we are on until it implodes. The various interest groups from AARP to Veterans and everyone in between want THEIR item/project funded and refuses to budge to make shared sacrifice. B/C of this the end result is likely to be that everyone will continue to get their funding until the music finally stops. Make sure you have a chair when it does b/c no one else will.
Yep. The only way a default would happen would be if Traitor Joe intentionally broke the law and made it happen, in which case he adds another treason charge to his resume.
The default lie was made up by Barky (the guy who took a “shut down” federal government and used it to close off open-air monuments and national park lookout points!). Of course, Barky wasn’t impeached for that – as he should have been – so now it is accepted as some sort of “reasonable” leftist action. But it isn’t reasonable. It isn’t legal. And it sure ain’t American, in any way, shape, or form.
Also, too many RINO turds repeat the “default” idiocy. With friends like that …
All the more reason to defund the whole goddamn thing.
Ironclaw,
Can you provide the contours of what you are arguing for when you suggest:
1. A Federal Govt ‘Default’
2. Congress to ‘defund’ the whole thing
What does each of those separate things look like? How does each happen, who supports it, who opposes it, what is the likelihood of each, which of the various political interest groups and their lobbyists will support or oppose them, how long would these conditions last and what comes after them of they occur?
If you are just running off steam b/c the situation sucks them fine feel free to ignore the questions but if you are serious please flesh out the roadmap so we can understand your position in detail. Thanks. I look forward to your submission.
How about we make a start that stops all foreign aid? If we can’t pay our bills, why are we pissing away money in Ukraine, and every where else to people who hate us?
But we all can’t agree on that.
Regarding Veterans. How about we stop paying lazy shitbags to sit on their ass and collect welfare, before we cut veterans benefits?
Regarding other outlays? Why are we handing money over to NGOs to bring Illegal military age males to the US, when we can’t pay our own bills.
There are many shared sacrifices, but I want to see people who have their hands out lose their share before we take away from those who made a legitimate contribution to the nation.
OK. This was the guy that all of the Trump supporters here on this blog thought was our savior. After all, he was a 100% Trump supporter, thought that the election was stolen, wanted to overturn the election results, and supported the J6 protestors. How could he do anything wrong? Just like Trump! This is the biggest problem with Trump and his supporters. They have no clue about who to endorse and support in our government. If Trump is elected in 2024, we can expect more and more of this idiocy from Trump.
I remember people being hopeful about it, but not anybody thinking he would be our savior.
Personally, I think we’re royally screwed no matter who serves in any office. Not enough people care about the things that could save our republic.
Go crawl back under your rock before you dry up and turn to dust.
1. No one posted that.
2. What would the WSJ think of your post, JR? Do better.
Do you have a better suggestion, or to just feel like bashing Trump for no good reason?
What I’ve noticed JR does on a regular basis is called “shit posting”.
Please send us a link to all those posts that said Johnson would be a savior. We’ll wait.
I’m still waiting on Junior to provide a response to an article I gave him regarding the damage that Muslim terrorists are doing to the world.
I haven’t been holding my breath.
You back again?
I thought you and Cher were leaving because we all a bunch of Racisssss!
We always wonder why republicans campaign as conservatives and when they get to Washington behave no better than democrats. With the reveal from Madison Cawthorn about how they attempted to “honeypot” him, I wonder if this is standard with all newly elected rep / sen in order to keep them compliant to the deep state objectives. I wouldn’t put it past the entrenched bureaucracy (FBI?) of doing such a thing. Was the announcement of the bust of the high end brothel in DC a warning shot to congress (who “coincidentally” promptly approved $300MM for a new FBI building)? Ordinarily, I would tell myself to take off the tin foil hat, but these days…..
Because the whole system is rigged. It’s like gambling slot machines at a casino.
The federal government needs to be shut down – that’s the only way to stop the treason that’s happening at the border – and the GOP needs to actually use the great power the House has, which is to just stop the money. If there’s no border then there’s no need for any federal government since there is no nation.
I understand how tough it is for the Speaker to deal with such a slim majority, but he has to be WILLING to let the federal government get shut down, to even start.
I remember hearing once that that relationships are controlled by the one that cares the least. If I were speaker johnson, I wouldn’t care at all, pass the legislation through the house and let everyone else deal with their part of the process. If they voted down, send them the same bill again and again.
So is this “spending agreement” just going to be another Continuing Spending Resolution with a subsequent massive Omnibus Spending Bill that nobody will have time or the inclination to read but will be passed nonetheless or is the House actually going to sit down and author an actual “Budget” wherein the appropriation and spending for each department, bureau, administration, agency will be clearly spelled out for the public to review and comment upon. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Budgets aren’t really relevant. They just set goals, and nobody really cares about those anyway. It’s the appropriation bills that count.
The GOP is white trash. They don’t care about America; they only care about getting re-elected to a relatively cushy job. Screw them.
I’m voting for anyone who wants to dismantle big government and the various departments e.g. education, epa etc.
And to avoid everything getting slow-walked into a terminal coma, the dismantling needs to be sudden and (if need be) kinetic.
If anybody who’s running tells you that they’re for all of that, they’re lying to you. They’re running so they can CONTROL all of that, i.e. control the money. Just as with term limits, the last thing they want is to cut their own throats.
Johnson should not be talking with Schumer, at all. Johnson should not have anything to do with the Senate. That is not his job. Johnson should only be talking with the House GOP, finding out the best bill he can put forward that will be supported by the House GOP and just pass that. Let Schumer and the Senate do whatever they want with it. If Schumer wants to have the feral government shut down over the bill, then fine. Let them do it. That is not the House’s worry or the House’s job. THe House’s job is just to give the Senate THE bill, tell them that that’s that – no negotiations about it – and let them do whatever they want. If Schumer wants to hold it off or it gets voted down, tough s**t. Send the exact same bill right back to them.
The House has only one real power – the purse – and Johnson has to be willing to use it to try and straighten this country out. If this feral government shuts down for a bit it could only enhance the nation’s security. It would be better if federal border agents weren’t being paid to interfere with Texas guards securing the border …
Yep, you just mirrored my thoughts pretty much exactly
Vote harder
Why would they adhere to some agreement between Biden and McCarthy from last year,? McCarthy is not just no longer the speaker he is no longer a sitting member of the house, he quit the job.
Still waiting for them to fix TCJA’s section 174 capitalization of salaries, and return to full expensing as was the historical norm since forever. It’s an effing disaster for small tech companies. The politically progressive tech giants can weather it just fine though, especially if their competition is being bankrupted by tax law.
Which is why their lobbyists wrote it.
The expression “not the hill to die on” should be “there is no hill to die on” for Congressional Republican “leaders”. They never saw a spending bill they did not like.
202-224-3121
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Hey, Pussy Party, with Republicans like you, who needs Democrats?!
“The House Freedom Caucus will not support the spending agreement between House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Steve Schumer to avoid a government shutdown.”
Who is Steve Schumer?
Thought it might be a middle name or nickname for U.S. Senator Charles Ellis “Chuck” Schumer, but I can’t figure out the apparent typo.