This action by Senate Republicans is indeed audacious. For one, they are pressing ahead with President Donald Trump’s plan to cut about $9 billion in spending that Congress had already authorized. The move is especially puzzling given the backdrop of an anticipated $3.4 trillion in deficits projected over the next 10 years. The maneuver demonstrates the current tussle in Congress over doing what some would call the right thing and providing some discipline with taxpayer dollars.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune went so far as to say that addressing the national debt was the point’s “urgent” purpose. It has gone up to a downright shocking $36 trillion. He stated, “When you’ve got a $36 trillion debt, we have to do something to get spending under control.” This basic sentiment reveals an acute recognition among many legislators of the need to address the long-term effects of runaway government largesse.
Even with these calls for increased fiscal restraint, some senators have shared doubts about the Republican’s intentions. Senator Patty Murray criticized her colleagues, claiming they are “pretending they are concerned about the debt.” She testified to her fear of how all these proposed cuts would affect her mental health. She emphasized the impact on local public radio and television stations that would be in jeopardy without federal funding.
That rescissions package, which the Senate flirted with, has been roundly criticized for not specifying which programs it would cut. Senator Susan Collins pointed out this issue, stating, “The rescissions package has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it.” This ambiguity has led many to wonder what the cuts will mean for public services that young people rely on.
Senator Eric Schmitt defended the bill, calling it “a first step in a long but necessary fight to put our nation’s fiscal house in order.” Yet his remarks reveal that proponents of the measure feel that conclusive action is needed. They’re entirely focused on driving down federal spending right now.
Originally introduced by Senator Mike Rounds, he worked with the administration to craft a more palatable version of the measure, gaining his support. He’s right, because this is exactly the kind of initiative that gets us to a sustainable fiscal policy. Not all Republicans are on the same page. Senator Angus King, who made direct, passionate pleas against their inclusion in the bill, said the cuts would “shred the appropriations process.”
Concerns were further echoed by Senator Lisa Murkowski, who stated, “We are lawmakers. We should be legislating.” She underscored her frustration with the policy guidance coming from the White House on spending priorities. Murkowski’s concerns paint a real picture of the struggle legislators are forced to undertake when dealing with executive orders on spending issues.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) later echoed Murkowski’s concerns. He added that legislators urgently lack information from the administration, which is needed to be able to inform good decision-making. He remarked, “They would like a blank check is what they would like. I don’t think that’s appropriate.” It’s vagueness like this that fuels confusion and further aggravates tensions between Republicans and Democrats in wading through complicated budget negotiations.
The proposed cuts have cut a swath of predictable controversy through popular programs. We started with Republicans wanting to slash PEPFAR—which has long proven bipartisan support—by $400 million. After backlash from the community and other advocates, they abandoned this proposal. This decision is an example of the continued political sensitivity that you’ll find around providing funding for significantly popular programs.
Democrats caution that Republicans’ continued attempts to pursue funding cuts for favored programs and increased funding for disfavored programs will poison the well for bipartisan cooperation. They argue that this approach puts future deterrent spending reparations at risk. Senator Patty Murray encapsulated this sentiment, arguing that it is “absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures” under these conditions.
The current battles over budgetary priorities and program cuts highlight the complicated politics at work inside of Congress. As lawmakers actively debate those and other proposals, the landscape for education, healthcare, and media stands to drastically change. These are hotly contested discussions and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
