Posted on 04/08/2025 7:36:07 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
President Donald Trump on Monday endorsed the Senate-passed budget resolution, saying it will help advance the “one, big, beautiful bill” to cut taxes and secure the border.
Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday night, calling on the House — and by extension, every House Republican — to vote to pass the Senate-passed budget resolution:
The Budget Plan just passed by the United States Senate has my Complete and Total Endorsement and Support. All of the elements we need to secure the Border, enact Historic Spending Cuts, and make Tax Cuts PERMANENT, and much more, are strongly covered and represented in the Bill. Thank you to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and House Speaker Mike Johnson for their hard work and attention to detail. There is no better time than now to get this Deal DONE! The House, the Senate, and our Great Administration, are going to work tirelessly on creating “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,” an appropriate name if Congress so likes. Everyone is going to be happy with the result. Passage will make, even the subject of World Trade, far easier and better for the U.S.A. THE HOUSE MUST PASS THIS BUDGET RESOLUTION, AND QUICKLY — MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If the House republicans botch this up you can kiss the mid term election goodbye. Time to give these cats a buzz or at a minimum an email.
Supposed to be put on the House floor Wednesday.
I am not sure of the details of the process, but I guess they pass it for the purpose of reconciliation, then they work out the details of reconciling the house and senate bills, then a final vote that only needs a majority in both house and senate?
Congratulations to the Senate. They really (surprisingly) came through, big time. Speaker Johnson and the House now must absolutely step up and deliver. No more nonsense from the Republican women seeking child care.
Reconciliation has nothing to do with aligning the House bill with Senate bill. It is a word that in this case has nothing to do with reconciling House with Senate.
Reconciliation is a procedure within Senate rules that allows a bill to pass without being subject to the 60 vote filibuster constraints. Reconciliation allows passage without 60 votes provided the bill in question has a number of purely budgetary features, and there are constraints on those budgetary features.
If you tried to add some amendment involving guns rights to the bill, it would not qualify for Reconciliation and would require 60 votes. Strictly budgetary issues. Among them a constraint on deficit impact, and an attempt is being made to finesse that because the bill as it exists would hugely add to the debt via failure to reduce the deficit.
Ok, so what is the process of ‘reconciling’ the house version and the senate version called? I thought that was reconciliation but I guess I am forgetting the proper term.
That process is called Conference Committee. House and Senate leaders appoint members to the committee and they hash out the differences in the two versions.
Try to figure out how much the budget would be cut in the Senate resolution.
Congress is the largest collection of criminals and do nothing’s in human history. They represent themselves and that’s about it.
Ahh, thank you.
Perhaps you would know...
Is the Conference Committee a place where the budgets in bills could be further cut to reflect the expected savings from the downsizing already taking place? Or are the allocated numbers already set in stone for the bill?
As I recall, there are actually two steps in the budgetary process. allocation and authorization. I cant recall which comes first, I think allocation, but the first sets aside the money and the second authorizes the spending.
If one allocates but then doesnt spend, then it would seem the deficit would be reduced by that amount. Maybe the allocated funds dont need to be printed and allowed to get into circulation, but the timing of printing dollars with respect to the spending and debt ceiling is another detail I dont know.
Just thinking we can spend less under Trump, but what happens with unspent allocated budget funds and whats the best strategy to make it more difficult for future admins to renew budget busting spending?
The words are appropriation and authorization.
The phrases are . . . some agency is authorized to spend the money appropriated for some task.
Both items must pass Congress.
As for what goes on in the Conference Committee, it is supposed to be a negotiation to close a gap between House and Senate version. I don’t think I have ever heard of Conference Committee members essentially writing new legislation doing something different from either the House or Senate’s bill.
The biggest impediments to reducing spending are the relentless growth of interest on the national debt (of the $7T in spending this year, over $1T is interest), and the other is simply inflation. Whatever a governmental function cost last year to operate, it will cost more this year. People, inside and contractors, get inflationary pay raises.
The takeaway I get from your reply is that as long as we are baseline budgeting, and not doing specific appropriation bills like we are supposed to, we are screwed.
Has Trump not noticed that people don’t think big spending bills are beautiful at all?
Yes the whole idea of the reconciliation bill is a simple majority. It's complicated.
I love my life as a non-member of Congress....a simple citizen who will be indebted to Trump and his cabinet...if they can take the "big" out of "big government". And Musk, too.
Maybe. We are screwed regardless because of that $1T+ in interest.
Baseline budgeting is mostly a process to avoid the annual work of re-computing the costs of each tiny segment of each agency. That’s a lot of work, and not even the Congressional staffers are going to read it. Not when it is sooooooo much easier to look at last year’s funding, recognize there is no change to authorization for the function in question and just presume what it took last year to implement that function is what it will take this year — adjusted for inflation.
And then there is the issue of employees, be they federal or contractors, often also get longevity pay raises. Their experience is considered valuable — in addition to inflationary pay increases. Now, that experience should enable them to do tasks more efficiently and that is the rationale, but reality is, some tasks are so straightforward there is no benefit to that experience.
Regardless, the price for the function rises.
This already passed the Senate, where Collins and Murkowski are.
Our guys need to stand with Trump... and stand for him.
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.