Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts How to Bungle a Budget
|
Sunday, March 16, 2025
How to Bungle a Budget
David Super
Congress yesterday
enacted a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the federal government through the
six-plus months remaining in this fiscal year.
The measure cleared the House 217-213, essentially on party lines (with
one Member on each side voting against their parties). It passed the Senate 54-46, with two senators
that caucus with Democrats voting “yes” and one Republican voting “no”. To reach the Senate floor, however, it needed
eight Democratic votes on a procedural motion and received ten. Crucial was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s announcement that he would support the procedural motion. House Democrats and progressive activists have fiercely condemned him since then. This post analyzes the Democrats’ actions relating to the CR. It finds that Senator Schumer made the correct move at the end in allowing the CR to pass but that he and other congressional Democrats badly mishandled the process leading up to that point. The criticism of him is misinformed, but leadership’s ill-considered rhetoric contributed to that misinformation. A bit of background is in order. Last Spring, Congress and President Biden reached bipartisan agreements on all twelve appropriations bills necessary to fund the federal government for the fiscal year ending September 2024. These bills included the substantial cuts required by the agreement President Biden negotiated with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in exchange for raising the debt limit. They did not, however, include the further reductions in domestic discretionary spending that House Republicans had sought. Like other modern appropriations acts, these bills were accompanied by joint explanatory statements providing considerably more detail on how funds were to be allocated beyond that in the statutory language. Administrations have consistently treated these joint explanatory statements as binding to avoid appropriators’ bipartisan wrath. This tradition has caused appropriators to become almost indifferent as to which directives go into the bills and which go into the joint explanatory statements. With partisanship at its zenith a few weeks before the November election, Congress was in no position to agree on new appropriations bills last September. It therefore passed a short-term CR, essentially allowing agencies to continue spending at the 2024 rate for October, November, and part of December. When this short-term CR expired, Republicans wanted to give the incoming Trump Administration a say in crafting year-long appropriations bills. Accordingly, they insisted on another short-term CR, to last through March 14. Republican negotiators then began discussions with their Democratic counterparts on crafting year-long bills. About two weeks ago, Republicans walked away from the table and indicated that they would move to pass a CR to continue spending at the 2024 levels for the remainder of the year. Because of inflation, this represents a significant real cut: agencies must eliminate some activities to free up funds to pay higher prices for others. Republicans declined to work with Democrats on writing this CR but promised it would be “clean”, i.e., devoid of substantive policy changes. Both parties agreed that some “anomalies” would need to be addressed: positive or negative changes in the cost of government activities under current policies. (For example, when appropriators write CRs near the end of a decade, they must include “anomaly” funding for the decennial census.) As the March 14 deadline approached and Republicans still would not release their proposed CR, Democrats and independent budget experts began to wonder why it was taking so long if the CR really was “clean”. Some Republicans fanned these fears by urging their party’s leaders to incorporate the cuts Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was making in a plethora of programs. Democratic appropriators, completely frozen out of the process, concluded reasonably that the only way they could influence these budgetary decisions would be to defeat the CR that the Republicans were drafting and force a resumption of bipartisan negotiations. They hoped that, once they got Republican appropriators alone in a room, they could work out some additional specificity on how appropriated funds should be spent, perhaps by moving some of the detail that previously had been in joint explanatory statements into legislative language. With Republicans only able to suffer one or two defections if House Democrats held together – and numerous Freedom Caucus Members on record with “principled” objections to CRs -- defeating the CR seemed potentially withing reach. So far, so good. Unfortunately, attacking a CR one has not seen is not easy. Some Democrats decided to attack the entire concept of a CR. They said that the CR must be defeated because it would give President Trump and Mr. Musk more flexibility to slash the government. This line was picked up by rank-and-file Members and by activists. Left unaddressed, however, was the comparator they had in mind when speaking of “more flexibility”. A year-long CR likely would give the Administration more flexibility than the year-long appropriations bills Democratic appropriators hoped to negotiate. A year-long CR would not, however, give the Administration more flexibility than the existing part-year CR did. And nothing inherent in a clean CR would give the Administration more flexibility than the bipartisan appropriations bills from 2024. Finally, with the Republicans exerting remarkably tight party discipline, it is far from clear that any actual full-year appropriations bills Republicans would actually have accepted would have imposed further limitations. When the Republicans finally released their CR proposal last weekend, it was not “clean”. Under the guise of adjusting for anomalies, they shifted a not-insignificant amount of funds from human services to the Administration’s priorities. Structurally, however, the CR provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided in this division, the requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions of the appropriations Acts [from 2024] shall continue in effect”. Having demonized the very concept of a CR, congressional Democrats and activists proved unable to recalibrate their message to target the real but more subtle shortcomings of the Republicans’ proposal. They did such an effective job of promoting the CR-as-slush-fund message that reporters simply would not believe that that message did not match the actual legislation. This unified, if misleading, message kept House Democrats together, but when House Republicans, too, stayed uncharacteristically unified, Senate Democrats were in a bind. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated the folly of causing a partial government shutdown without a clear, coherent plan. Had Senate Democrats defeated the CR, they surely would have demonstrated the same thing again. This is what Senator Schumer tried to communicate, but his remarks were less than crystalline. And too much of the party was too invested in over-the-top criticisms of the CR to hear him. A partial government shutdown is particularly ill-suited as a response to the current crisis. A partial government shutdown prevents spending – which is precisely the opposite of what Democrats are trying to accomplish. Past government shutdowns ended because both parties had programs to which they were devoted. For example, Republicans did not want to be blamed for interrupting funds for disease research. Today, the National Institutes of Health are a major focus of the Administration’s attacks. Indeed, it is difficult to identify any programs that Republicans care about enough to gain concessions. (The only plausible candidate would be immigration enforcement, but Democrats are badly splintered on all things relating to immigration and so are ill-positioned to hold enforcement funds hostage to force a deal.) President Trump would have had some ability to shield his preferred activities from a partial government shutdown by manipulating what he declared to be an essential government function. Republicans also could have brought up bills restoring funding only to some parts of the government – such as restoring pay for armed servicemembers or federal law enforcement officers – and dared Democrats to vote against them. Activists might wish congressional Democrats would shrug off voters’ anger over “abandoning our men and women in uniform”, but that is not realistic. Thus, had Democrats killed the CR, Republicans might not have simply left crucial programs unfunded for several weeks or even months and denied Democrats another chance to vote to fund those programs at any level. Democrats triggering a partial government shutdown by withholding their votes also would have confused the picture for low-information voters about who is responsible for the deteriorations in public services that are resulting from DOGE’s chaotic cuts and mass layoffs. To the extent the President’s polling numbers have eroded modestly, it appears attributable to this chaos and fears about public services; Democrats would have been foolish to confuse that story. This episode offers at least two lessons. First, as difficult as it may be to formulate and communicate effective messages with Republicans constantly serving up surprises, progressives are unwise to succumb to the temptation to characterize technical legislation in ways likely to cause misunderstandings by journalists and grassroots activists. Today’s bitter recriminations result from allowing the desire to win the next vote to overcome the long perspective. More importantly, candor ought to be progressives’ trademark. And second, progressives will accomplish little until they leave their comfort zone of fighting intramural battles. Members, and leadership, feel such relentless pressure to “do something, anything” that they keep floating short-sighted, counter-productive initiatives. The country is in this position because too many voters rejected progressives and wanted to give President Trump another chance to lead. Very little will change until a significant number of those voters’ views change. That will happen when they understand the destructive and gratuitously cruel actions the Administration is taking in their names. Anyone troubled by the Administration’s actions – from top congressional leaders to grassroots activists and across the political spectrum – needs to shine a light on what the Administration is doing. Persuasion is the only kind of “fighting” that will make a difference. Performative acts of defiance may hearten activists but they are unlikely to persuade the voters whose views matter – and could push those voters in the other direction. The vulnerable people suffering from the Administration’s callous and reckless actions cannot afford the self-indulgence of reflexive combativeness lacking a plausible path forward. @DavidASuper1 @DavidASuper.bsky.social Posted 12:22 AM by David Super [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |