48
48
0
For those keeping track of the comings and goings of Washington DC, you recently saw an agreement to continue to fund the government for 45-days.
On the one hand, it is good that an agreement was reached. Many would have been hurt and our security would have been put more at risk if a resolution to continue funding the government at fiscal year 2023 levels was not passed. On the other hand, there is a major problem – we are not having the debate.
We must have the debate – a debate on the size, scope, and purpose of our government; the United States’ role in the world; and the deficit – rather than lurching from crisis-to-crisis. Such a debate would not only bring more efficacy to our governance, but it would also bring more legitimacy to our government and political system.
Yet, a substantive debate on the issues did not unfold during the recent continuing resolution process. Rather, if there was any form of debate, it was about process, pure politics, and theatrical in nature.
Further missed in much of the commentary surrounding this recently passed resolution to continue to fund the government was a dialogue of what it all means for our system of government.
Why was a continuing resolution needed in the first place?
A continuing resolution is required to continue the functions of government because Congress has not taken up and passed all twelve of the appropriations bills. The House has only considered a handful on the House floor, and the Senate has considered none on the floor to date.
What does this suggest about our legislative process?
The government has been annually appropriated through what is termed an omnibus bill, which pulls all 12 appropriations bills into one giant piece of legislation and is voted on once. Those in opposition to the recent continuing resolution argued that Congress should no longer pass omnibus bills. It should instead take up the twelve appropriations bills individually so that elected members can debate the merits of each program in a “regular order” process, which is DC-speak for the legislative process we learned in civics as kids. This would be a notable change because there is only one bill that annually follows something close to regular order: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The NDAA has passed for 62 years in a row – the so-called “do-nothing” Congress does do something. Both chambers annually pass this comprehensive piece of national security legislation that not only addresses the US Department of Defense but, increasingly, other national security agencies of government such as the State Department, Department of Energy, and others. It is a herculean effort to develop, write, conference, and pass the NDAA through regular order each year (believe me, I was part of it as a House Armed Services Committee staffer). But through regular order, the NDAA gains bipartisan support.
The NDAA achieves this bipartisan support because debates – thousands of them – occur through the regular order process. At every step of the development of the NDAA, arguments are made, negotiations occur, and differences are hashed out. This allows members of Congress – from both sides – to have a program-by-program opportunity for input.
Therefore, instead of the policy question being: “should we have a Department of Defense?”, the critical policy questions become more manageable, more reasonable, more nuanced, and more measured: “should we authorize program X to do Y or Z?” Regular order enables Members (and staff) to consider each governmental program, in conjunction with the President’s budget request, and in relation to their policy objectives. This not only makes for better legislation but also better policy.
45-days from now, Congress will have to consider another continuing resolution, or the government will shutdown. But, in the same 45-days, the rancor will be louder; the mistrust will be greater; the process will be even more complex with the motion to remove the Speaker of the House, unresolved Ukraine aid, and continued disagreements over border security and immigration.
Congress may well get through the continuing resolution process again in 45 days but not through a substantive debate. Rather, it will be through framing each side of the debate; characterizing the motives of each side; procedural and process-based tactics to advantage one party, one side, one faction over the other; and adjusting positions not through substantive dialogue and negotiation but through expediency given the impending deadline.
Instead of doing this yet again, I say…
Let’s have the debate.
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security,
foreign policy, politics, and society. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.
On the one hand, it is good that an agreement was reached. Many would have been hurt and our security would have been put more at risk if a resolution to continue funding the government at fiscal year 2023 levels was not passed. On the other hand, there is a major problem – we are not having the debate.
We must have the debate – a debate on the size, scope, and purpose of our government; the United States’ role in the world; and the deficit – rather than lurching from crisis-to-crisis. Such a debate would not only bring more efficacy to our governance, but it would also bring more legitimacy to our government and political system.
Yet, a substantive debate on the issues did not unfold during the recent continuing resolution process. Rather, if there was any form of debate, it was about process, pure politics, and theatrical in nature.
Further missed in much of the commentary surrounding this recently passed resolution to continue to fund the government was a dialogue of what it all means for our system of government.
Why was a continuing resolution needed in the first place?
A continuing resolution is required to continue the functions of government because Congress has not taken up and passed all twelve of the appropriations bills. The House has only considered a handful on the House floor, and the Senate has considered none on the floor to date.
What does this suggest about our legislative process?
The government has been annually appropriated through what is termed an omnibus bill, which pulls all 12 appropriations bills into one giant piece of legislation and is voted on once. Those in opposition to the recent continuing resolution argued that Congress should no longer pass omnibus bills. It should instead take up the twelve appropriations bills individually so that elected members can debate the merits of each program in a “regular order” process, which is DC-speak for the legislative process we learned in civics as kids. This would be a notable change because there is only one bill that annually follows something close to regular order: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The NDAA has passed for 62 years in a row – the so-called “do-nothing” Congress does do something. Both chambers annually pass this comprehensive piece of national security legislation that not only addresses the US Department of Defense but, increasingly, other national security agencies of government such as the State Department, Department of Energy, and others. It is a herculean effort to develop, write, conference, and pass the NDAA through regular order each year (believe me, I was part of it as a House Armed Services Committee staffer). But through regular order, the NDAA gains bipartisan support.
The NDAA achieves this bipartisan support because debates – thousands of them – occur through the regular order process. At every step of the development of the NDAA, arguments are made, negotiations occur, and differences are hashed out. This allows members of Congress – from both sides – to have a program-by-program opportunity for input.
Therefore, instead of the policy question being: “should we have a Department of Defense?”, the critical policy questions become more manageable, more reasonable, more nuanced, and more measured: “should we authorize program X to do Y or Z?” Regular order enables Members (and staff) to consider each governmental program, in conjunction with the President’s budget request, and in relation to their policy objectives. This not only makes for better legislation but also better policy.
45-days from now, Congress will have to consider another continuing resolution, or the government will shutdown. But, in the same 45-days, the rancor will be louder; the mistrust will be greater; the process will be even more complex with the motion to remove the Speaker of the House, unresolved Ukraine aid, and continued disagreements over border security and immigration.
Congress may well get through the continuing resolution process again in 45 days but not through a substantive debate. Rather, it will be through framing each side of the debate; characterizing the motives of each side; procedural and process-based tactics to advantage one party, one side, one faction over the other; and adjusting positions not through substantive dialogue and negotiation but through expediency given the impending deadline.
Instead of doing this yet again, I say…
Let’s have the debate.
Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security,
foreign policy, politics, and society. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.
Edited 11 mo ago
Posted 11 mo ago
Responses: 27
There us no such thing as a continuing resolution, it is a made up concept. When budget time comes and there is no budget: all of Congress and the Administration needs to be sequestered until a budget is passed. Earmarks are another thing. All earmarks have to be made illegal.
(17)
(0)
SPC Michael Tierney
SFC (Join to see) - We got freeze dried meals in VN in 1968. They were great. Just light a chunk of C4 to boil the water and mix it up. So much better than the awful C rations (except the fruit cocktail and pound cake). This comment is unrelated to the issue but fun to remember those days.
(2)
(0)
COL Ralph Bryan Hanes
I don’t much like ear marks, however, they are a necessary part of the life of a legislator. This is one way and in some cases the primary way that our elected representatives take care of things back home in their district. It is a lousy way to do business as it facilitates corruption as normal business, but that is a by-product of our system of government. We make the process a function of who can draw in the most money in campaign contributions vs who has the best vision and commitment to serve their constituents and the nation and add institutionalized corruption through the seniority system in congress and there is no way to stop it without changing the system. Our democracy works ONLY with honorable citizenry and representatives. Without the honor being present a kleptocracy is inevitable. The question how can we constitutionally change it? The obviously ways are either unconstitutional or pipe dreams or both. There has to be a way and as a nation, we better find and implement it or we will not be in a position to choose and all that we and our forefathers(mothers) worked for will be down the drain.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
COL Ralph Bryan Hanes I personally don’t believe earmarks are necessary. Split up our tax money evenly among our population that pays into it and they need to make a budget they can live within. The idea of earmarks are for people to try to get more than their fair share. That idea is what is currently killing our country. There is no such thing as a free lunch. MHO
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Michael Tierney VN was a little before me I never heard of freeze dried meals… but being a 12B we did use C4 a lot. It’s funny how I can smile at the memories when some of the times were not so good. :)
(1)
(0)
If you don't pay military , active duty, veterans, you are saying you don't respect. Consider or care for those who protect you!
(12)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
PO3 Michelle Tremblay - What in God’s name are you talking about? “But I won't be silenced by you…”. Excuse me, you are the one trying to dismiss and silence me. Another quote: “We don't need anymore bullies in our presence.”. Well, it seems you are just full of name calling and bullying yourself without any honest conversation for someone who has a different opinion. The facts are plain to see for anyone who is listening to this conversation. Good night to you ma’am. I will not respond further. You have proved here you do not wish honest discussion.
(2)
(0)
LCpl Michael Cappello
The majority of those politicians DO NOT respect our military. Most of them have never served. They are more concerned with getting elected, sucking up the block of voters who voted for them, and getting re-elected. They do not give a rats SPIT for their fellow citizens or their oath of office. If they gave a damn about their oaths of office to support and defend the constitution , they would NEVER have some up with the idea of Democratic Socialism. Why not Communism next? They are already making progress towards Islamism. Imagine if Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib became Speaker of the House and something happened to the VP and President. Islam is NOT just a religion. It is also a form of governance. They would NOT, in good faith t their religion, be able to govern without having to govern according to Sharia Law. Not to mention, they could NOT swear an oath. In Islam, it is a sin to swear such an oath, or any oath, on the Quran. They can only take an oath by Allah and nothing else. Unfortunately, Muslims are allowed to LIE to us unbelievers (infidels). They couldn't have sworn on the bible. So, what oath did they swear and on what. I may be mistaken but, I do not believe I am.
(3)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
PO3 Michelle Tremblay -
MICHELLE?..... 8K? ~~ You Rich Kids Are All The SAME~~LOL
... When In So Korea, I Made ~ Base Pay ~ Over Seas Pay ~ Hazardous Duty Pay ~
Isolated Hardship Duty Pay...... For My MAX Of ...$2,073.00 Per Year.~~
I Just Looked It Up On Line.. And "NO" 'Things Were NOT A Lot Less Expensive Back Then ... From The Ranks Of E 5 On Down, Most Married Men Had Working Wife's AND On Food Assistance PLUS Supplemental Govt. Income... We Did NOT Make SH*T...
But To Be Honest, I Had So MUCH Fun, The USAF Should Have Demanded a Full Refund.
MICHELLE?..... 8K? ~~ You Rich Kids Are All The SAME~~LOL
... When In So Korea, I Made ~ Base Pay ~ Over Seas Pay ~ Hazardous Duty Pay ~
Isolated Hardship Duty Pay...... For My MAX Of ...$2,073.00 Per Year.~~
I Just Looked It Up On Line.. And "NO" 'Things Were NOT A Lot Less Expensive Back Then ... From The Ranks Of E 5 On Down, Most Married Men Had Working Wife's AND On Food Assistance PLUS Supplemental Govt. Income... We Did NOT Make SH*T...
But To Be Honest, I Had So MUCH Fun, The USAF Should Have Demanded a Full Refund.
(2)
(0)
44 States, Governors are required to submit a balanced budget. So why not the U.S. Government - because it is not in the Constitution (as if many care about the Constitution today anyway). So lawmakers don't really care just as long as their pet peeves are met, their pockets get lined. Big business, money and power have corrupted those we send to Washington it is not surprising nothing gets done except kicking the can down the road. So a shutdown, Congress doesn't care, they still get paid. Infact during a shutdown, all essential services remain open or operating. SSI, VA, Pension checks still get sent out. Ever go online and look at what services are essential`? Those services which have already been appropriated still function. The government still continues to take in taxes - every look up how much is taken in everyday?
Yes there needs to be a debate, but that debate needs to focus on who should be effected by a shut down. If I operated my business the way the U.S. Congress operates, I would have been out of business a long time ago. There is no consequences for any member of Congress if a funding bill is not passed. Americans need to wake up and stop being divided by parties and start being Americans and holding their Congressmen's feet to the fire. The trash is in great need of being taken out. Term limits needs to be placed along with age limits. Lobbyists needs to be banned from any contact with Congress-. Any financial gain should off set a Congressmen's pay. In my eyes, a Congressman isn't worth anything more than anyone who volunteers for the military.
Once power and money are taken away. Term limits are established as well as age limits, then maybe we will get a Congress who will work for the good of the Country. Until this happens you can debate all you want, but nothing is going to happen. The can will still be kicked down the road and "they" won't give a tinkers dam.
Yes there needs to be a debate, but that debate needs to focus on who should be effected by a shut down. If I operated my business the way the U.S. Congress operates, I would have been out of business a long time ago. There is no consequences for any member of Congress if a funding bill is not passed. Americans need to wake up and stop being divided by parties and start being Americans and holding their Congressmen's feet to the fire. The trash is in great need of being taken out. Term limits needs to be placed along with age limits. Lobbyists needs to be banned from any contact with Congress-. Any financial gain should off set a Congressmen's pay. In my eyes, a Congressman isn't worth anything more than anyone who volunteers for the military.
Once power and money are taken away. Term limits are established as well as age limits, then maybe we will get a Congress who will work for the good of the Country. Until this happens you can debate all you want, but nothing is going to happen. The can will still be kicked down the road and "they" won't give a tinkers dam.
(12)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - Again you show a complete lack of knowledge of the budget process.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SGT (Join to see) When the whole of your argument is "I've been doing this for years, and SGM Mikel Dawson is ignorant" followed by "so is Casey," that's not really a valid argument.
If the good SGM and I are really ignorant (and I promise you. Neither of us are), then please educate. Use those years of supposed expertise and explain why and how he or I are wrong.
If the good SGM and I are really ignorant (and I promise you. Neither of us are), then please educate. Use those years of supposed expertise and explain why and how he or I are wrong.
(1)
(0)
SGT Kerry Sommers
one thing that would help if the Congress went back to a full 5 day work week. Now they fly home on Friday and fly Back Monday. That gives them 3 days to get stuff done. I say fly back on Sunday and be ready bright and early on Monday morning for work. Then on Saturday if your work is completed, you can fly home.
(0)
(0)
SPC Michael Tierney
SGT (Join to see) - Your first item is one I have a huge problem with. FEMA should be disbanded. Every state should;ld self insure for their natural disasters. We all know what bad things can happen to our states (floods, fires, hurricanes...). Tax the residents accordingly. Essentially another level of insurance that is funded by those who will need it.
I definitely support funding for NATO allies as well as Ukraine and Taiwan. Funding for war related issues too such as blasting the Houthis.
And, yes, there are a "thousand different items" needed for government to function.
I just have a real problem with "FEMA to the rescue".
I definitely support funding for NATO allies as well as Ukraine and Taiwan. Funding for war related issues too such as blasting the Houthis.
And, yes, there are a "thousand different items" needed for government to function.
I just have a real problem with "FEMA to the rescue".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next