Let Me Off the Omnibus, Please!

4,155 pages of budget items, pork and unrelated add-ons

Congress handed Americans their traditional Christmas gift, or rather they told Americans what the cost of the gift to Congress would be. That cost, $1.65 trillion dollars, in the form of the largest Omnibus Bill in U.S. history.

This annual government spending bill is supposed to keep agencies running, and federal employees paid. That’s why there is stress each December, as politicians whine that ‘unless we pass this spending bill, our checks will bounce”. One again we heard the shrill threats from our representatives, “Time is not on our side!” screamed Senator Blunt (Republican, MO). And Patrick Leahy (Democrat, VT) warned, "We can either do our jobs and fund the government, or we can abandon our responsibilities without a real path forward!"

The complaints are always nothing more than political theater. The spending bills eventually pass, after both major parties pretend to be upset about (pick one) spending too much or too little on some pet program. In the end, the taxpayers, government printing presses, and exploding U.S. debt will support the illusion that this enormous bill will be funded.

The fantastic size of this bill is reflected in its fantastic physical size. A year ago, a 3,500-page funding bill was incredible. Now, that bill seems quaint. The hand-truck sized 2023 Omnibus arrived at a whopping 4,155 pages (and was conveniently delivered to Congress at 1 am, Tuesday December 27th).

As usual, the nearly 2 trillion dollars in expense covers massive defense spending (I wonder whatever happened to those huge stockpiles of military gear we were sitting on?) as well as funding paychecks for all federal workers including (of course) members of Congress. It also covers their massive staff. (What legislator is actually going to read those 4,000+ pages?) - Fun fact – Representatives are not allowed to have more than 18 full time and 4 part-time staff members, but Senators have no limit, so they average a mind-numbing 34 staffers.

But this is called an Omnibus Bill for a reason.

Besides government salaries, bombers, and drill sergeants, these bills contain…a lot of stuff. These add-ons tend to be unrelated and very general. How general? Glad you asked-

The 2023 bill includes a ban on the Tik Tok app for government mobile phones. It has a section that supports the Maine lobster industry, modifies rules for retirement savings, allows Boeing to circumvent updated safety rules in the cockpit of 737 planes (what could possibly go wrong there?) and changes the rules for certifying electoral votes.

But wait, there’s more. Much, much, more. In order to get the votes needed for passage, a very large amount of ingredients go into this holiday sausage:

For example, it contains the “Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022”. What can this possibly be? Here’s a hint – whenever you see the term, ‘Modernization’ in a law, it means greater government involvement. In this case, companies that produce mascara or lip gloss will now undergo extensive reporting to the FDA. Is nail polish a food or a drug, you ask? Well, maybe not, but a massive lobbying campaign by (you guessed it) certain producers of cosmetics have pushed to shut competitors out of the industry by adding regulations that are almost impossible to comply with. Reportedly, these new regulations create federal standards for cosmetic products registration, product listing, good manufacturing practice, record keeping, recalls, adverse event reporting and safety verification! Massive lawsuits are predicted that will raise consumer costs on products that are already expensive.

No wonder this spending bill is unread-ably bloated and costly. It contains gifts for every district, industry, union, or other potential groups for voters and political action groups. And you and I (and our grandchildren) will be paying for all of this.

Earmarks – the ‘pork’ part of a spending bill that crams in pet projects for lawmakers, was thought to be high back in April. At that time the proposed spending bill contained about 5,000 separate earmarks totaling nine billion dollars. (These pork projects were generated by both major parties, and some were even bipartisan.) The final bill, however, grew to over seven thousand of these ‘earmarks’ totaling fifteen billion dollars in pet project spending! The worst part of this sad story is that the huge spending bill recently passed accounts for less than a third of our government spending. Most of what we shell out is non-discretionary, including our largest expense medical programs, followed by defense. Here is the breakdown. The interest payment on government borrowing is projected to balloon to $665 billion by 2030. While Congress votes on only 30% of the budget, fiscal restraint on discretionary spending would be a great start.

Here at Reform Congress, we advocate for single-issue legislation, a position that calls for each of these add-ons to stand alone for its own up-or-down vote. “But they’d never pass!” Perhaps not. Perhaps they shouldn’t. And the budget would still pass, but in a cleaner form.

There is another mechanism, other than single-issue legislation, that could pare this bill down.

Years ago, Ronald Reagan came into office hoping to use a tool that had served him well as governor of California, the line-item veto. Line-item veto allowed him to sign a spending bill into law while rejecting many of the ridiculous add-ons that benefited special interests. Reagan talked up the advantages of this type of spending modification, but Congress (predictably) never granted him that change in law. Why should they? After all, boasting to constituents about how they channeled billions of tax dollars into their districts is what keeps them in office.

We will probably never see a line-item veto, or single-issue legislation, in Congress, unless a reform movement insists that the idea be supported. So, we will continue to see these omnibus spending bills grow to obscene sizes. In coming years, I fear, we will look back on this year’s bill as being reasonable.

Perhaps it’s time to consider putting responsible spending back onto the legislators themselves. What if there was such a thing as a line-item vote? Imagine an omnibus package with check marks beside every mention of mascara or social media app. A legislator would check only the elements of the bill they supported, leaving off the piles of pork. The bill would pass only with the elements that received the support of the majority.

The idea, of course, is ridiculous. Such a scheme would result in a small, low-cost bill. Any respectable member of Congress would be ashamed to be associated with such a tiny increase in the use of tax dollars. Instead, we will read about these massive expenditures and shake our heads for a week or two, then forget all about it once it stops making headlines.

Both major parties have demonstrated that they have no interest in responsible spending. They whine and complain as they add in financial support for their pet projects. The only people who really care about government spending are the people who pay for it.

When the voters decide to put people in office that respect tax dollars as a precious (and finite) resource, we will have a chance to see spending reform. Until then, this overloaded bus will grind on.