Running down the details of the debt ceiling agreementView this email in your browser <[link removed]>

 

 

A Spending Cap in Name Only

In our final X-Date, we note how Congress is already scheming to avoid
restrictions on military spending.

 

 

J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

By David Dayen

**** Today was supposed to be the actual X-date,
upon which the federal government would run out of money. Instead,
Congress passed and the president signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act
(FRA), suspending the debt ceiling for two years. So we’re using today
to round out our series on this absurd few weeks in American politics.
We hope to never again have to create a pop-up newsletter to cover the
threat of a catastrophic deliberate default on the nation’s debt, but
since this deal did nothing to extinguish that possibility, we will save
the X-Date logo for 2025.

We have discussed in detail
<[link removed]>
what the FRA will mean for public policy, from more paperwork
<[link removed]>
for poor people seeking federal benefits, to a Pipeline Payoff
<[link removed]>
that renders a future permitting reform deal more difficult, to the ways
in which Congress reasserted
<[link removed]>
its role in checking the judiciary. But since the centerpiece of this
deal is a spending cap, we’ll close X-Date by explaining how it is not
likely to be a cap at all.

I have said previously
<[link removed]> that the
Congressional Budget Office claim that this bill will cut $1.5 trillion
<[link removed]> in
federal spending is unreliable. That’s not the budget office’s
fault; there are side deals that both sides claim to be part of the
agreement that CBO didn’t score because they aren’t in the law’s
text. Those side deals will take rescinded COVID aid and IRS funding and
plow it into the nondefense discretionary side of the budget, so it just
about gets to the level of fiscal year 2023. Since that would create a
new baseline about $40 billion higher for fiscal year 2024, it changes
all of CBO’s assumptions on spending in the subsequent years.

Plus, after FY2025, the caps are lifted, and while CBO just assumes
spending will then rise at the rate of inflation, it will be the 2024
election that determines the trajectory. (That election is shaping up to
be monumental <[link removed]> in
terms of fiscal policy: The spending caps, the Trump tax cuts, including
the changes to the Child Tax Credit, the boosted subsidies for the
Affordable Care Act, and this debt ceiling suspension all expire after
the election, in 2025.) The best read on the actual cuts from this
agreement is about $136 billion
<[link removed]>,
with everything else a wild card.

But that’s only if the 12 annual spending bills pass Congress. If they
don’t, an automatic continuing resolution
<[link removed]>
will impose a new discretionary spending cap, with a 1 percent cut to
FY2023 levels. This mostly slams the defense side of the budget (which
is actually scheduled for a 3 percent increase under the deal) with what
amounts to close to a 10 percent cut in real terms. The auto-CR is
intended to enforce the side deals, although some House Democrats think
<[link removed]>
Republicans will be all too happy to automate further budget cuts.

**Read all of our debt ceiling coverage here**
<[link removed]>

Click to Support The American Prospect <[link removed]>

As I’ve written
<[link removed]>,
if you believe the Pentagon gets too much money, and the IRS too little,
the auto-CR is perhaps your friend, since in addition to slashing
military spending it would preserve most IRS funding from being
rescinded. But it would also extinguish some side deals that designate
$23 billion in domestic spending as "emergency," outside the caps, and
cut domestic budgets even beyond that by a bit. I also tend to think
that there will be enormous lobbyist pressure to pass the spending bills
and eradicate the existential threat of the military having to get by
with a paltry

**eight hundred and forty-nine billion dollars** in one year. (What, are
we supposed to get by with a mere ten aircraft carriers, like some kind
of peasant country?)

In fact, the loudest voices on Capitol Hill are saying that even the
boosted Pentagon budget, up to

**eight hundred and eighty-six billion dollars** in this deal, is
entirely too low
<[link removed]>.
And they’ve already figured out a way around it.

One of the reasons for the unusually lightning-fast Senate passage of
the deal, outside of making sure nobody’s summer Friday was trifled
with, was that Senate defense hawks demanded and got
<[link removed]>
what amounts to a commitment for votes on a supplemental spending bill
later in the year that adds military spending. That means going above
the $886 billion cap, maybe well above it.

This will be sold as part of an urgent request to funnel more money to
Ukraine’s war against Russia. But the defense hawks are being quite
open
<[link removed]>
about how they will attach funding that has nothing to do with Ukraine
to that. "There will be a day before too long where we’ll have to deal
with the Ukrainian situation. And that will create an opportunity for me
and others to fill in the deficiencies that exist from this budget
deal," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said bluntly to reporters on Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer read a statement
<[link removed]>
on the Senate floor Thursday night intended to "reassure our friends
across the world about the Senate’s commitment and ability to respond
to emerging threats and needs." Schumer said that "the debt ceiling deal
does nothing to limit the Senate’s ability to appropriate emergency
supplemental funds to ensure our military capabilities are sufficient to
deter China, Russia and our other adversaries and respond to ongoing and
growing national security threats."

That was the condition for speedy passage of the Fiscal Responsibility
Act. The language was negotiated between the parties in the Senate. It
connects the supplemental funds to "military capabilities," not just
overseas assistance to Ukraine. Everyone understands what’s about to
happen here; the military "caps" are a joke.

[link removed]

At the end of the statement, Schumer said, "Nor does this debt ceiling
limit the Senate’s ability to appropriate emergency supplemental funds
to respond to various national issues, such as disaster relief,
combating the fentanyl crisis or other issues of national importance."
That was a Democratic insertion, and a potential opportunity. We’ve
seen supplemental deals struck before that pair military and
non-military spending, so each side gets something. A Ukraine
supplemental could be the vehicle for that.

Many House MAGA types have been rallying against another Ukraine
supplemental, but we’ve seen in this debt ceiling deal that they do
not have unilateral influence over their caucus. There will be an
enormous amount of demagoguery over that supplemental; the extra
Pentagon funding smuggled through in the name of Ukraine won’t be
discussed. Whether enough Democratic votes are needed to create parity
in the deal, with some more funding for domestic priorities, remains to
be seen.

Still, there is another opportunity here. Democrats could demand
domestic priorities in the supplemental by threatening to deny votes on
other spending bills. Once again, if the spending bills fail, military
spending would suffer a much bigger cut. Of course, that may be too
dangerous a game for many defense-hawk Democrats.

At any rate, what becomes clear is that the spending cap is a comforting
fiction, intended for some budgets but not others, especially not the
ones that give military contractors the purchasing power for luxury
yachts and vacation homes. Which makes one wonder what the point of any
of this was.

Republicans spoke about changing the fiscal trajectory, but it’s
unlikely to change very much, and in some cases not at all. The deal
only affects a fraction of federal spending, and Congress is already
devising ways to shoot off the shackles they just clamped on themselves.
Meanwhile, the collateral damage of this make-believe belt-tightening is
that a handful of interests—older poor people trying to keep
eligibility for food assistance, tiny domestic policy agencies forced to
do more with less, student borrowers shoved back onto the debt
treadmill—will get randomly punched for no good reason.

In the metaphor of Washington as a spoiled child, the debt ceiling was
just a tantrum, a haphazard bout of anger, a meaningless cry for
attention. But the child will remain spoiled, its playroom stuffed with
toy weapons and G.I. Joe figures, no matter how much they cost. It’s
good to be the baby.

[link removed]

Click to Share this Newsletter

[SOCIALSHARE_FACEBOOK_LINK]

 

[SOCIALSHARE_TWITTER_LINK]

 

[SOCIALSHARE_LINKEDIN_LINK]

 

[link removed]

CLICK TO OPT OUT OF THIS NEWSLETTER SERIES
<[link removed]>

 

 

[link removed]

YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
<[link removed]>

The American Prospect, Inc., 1225 I Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC xxxxxx, United States

Copyright (c) 2023 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.

To opt out of American Prospect membership messaging, click here
<[link removed]>.

To manage your newsletter preferences, click here
<[link removed]>.

To unsubscribe from all American Prospect emails, including newsletters,
click here
<[link removed]>.