On Saturday morning, Donald Trump signed into law legislation that funds the government through the end of September, officially putting a bow on a tumultuous session that left Democrats divided on how to move forward and Republicans giddy over the continued dismantling of our government. Before diving too far into opinions, let’s take a look at the facts surrounding H.R 1968.
Chuck Schumer
Tom Cole (R-OK) stated “(H.R. 1968) does not contain a single poison pill policy rider. It is a clean CR, fully funding our government.” Typically, a clean bill means a bill that keeps government spending levels steady, which would allow time for the appropriations process to play out. By this standard, HR 1968 is not clean. It adds 6 billion to defense spending, and cuts 13 billion from domestic programs. Cuts to programs include 280 million from the National Institute of Health (cancer research, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, etc.), $30 million to the rural broadband Community Connect program (internet access for rural areas) and over $700 million from various rent subsidies and homeless response grants for working people. It also limits spending in DC to fiscal year 2024 spending levels. This effectively cuts 1.1 billion from DC’s budget for no discernable reason, although apparently Trump and the author of the bill Tom Cole both endorse rectifying this. (OPINION: “I’m now roughly 70 percent sure they put it in just to create a hothouse environment among Democratic Party staffers and bait the Senate into a shutdown.” - Matt Yglesias)
While budget cuts are on democrats minds, the things left unsaid in this budget have drawn criticism as well. HR 1968 removes all earmarks from the budget, which are how Congress specifically directs funds to certain projects. For example, a USAID budget of 40 billion dollars might include an earmark setting aside 1 billion of that for building water wells in the Sahara. Removing the earmark doesn’t mean the USAID budget is 39 billion, it means that whoever controls the USAID now has the discretion to spend that 1 billion however they see fit. It also now codifies a lot of the cuts DOGE has done, like the cuts to the NIH for example. Judges have ruled these cuts are illegal because Congress is the purse holder in our government, so this is Congress essentially approving these cuts after the fact. As AOC said; “This continuing resolution codifies much of this chaos that Elon Musk is wreaking havoc on the federal government. It codifies many of those changes,” and “This turns the federal government into a slush fund for Donald Trump and Elon Musk,”. Couple all of these reasons along with the fact that Democrats weren’t involved in the negotiation process, and it’s no surprise why everyone House Democrat except one (shoutout Jared Golden) voted against the bill on March 11th.
The following day, March 12th, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to the press and said Senate Democrats would NOT pass the bill. “Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass,” Schumer said. But it still wasn’t certain if democrats would actually shut down the government. “The CR is a terrible bill … but a shutdown has terrible consequences,” Said an anonymous Democratic Senator. “Elon Musk is trying to shut down the government. If we shut down the government, it takes the blame away from him and it puts the blame on us for chaos and confusion.” Talks would continue, and opinions would change.
Thursday March 13th, Chuck Schumer came out and said he WOULD vote to pass the bill. “For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option. It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address this country’s needs. But even if the White House says differently, Mr. Trump and Elon Musk want a shutdown. We should not give them one. The risk of allowing the president to take even more power via a government shutdown is a much worse path.” Schumer cites 4 reasons for his decision;
Schumer also states that Republicans wanted a shutdown, citing reports that Elon Musk wanted to go against the White House’s stated position. Some have speculated that there is some sort of “back-door” deal Schumer got, but I’ve yet to see any credible reporting asserting this to be true.
While Donald Trump took to social media to praise Schumer’s “guts and courage”, Democrats were less enthused. Nancy Pelosi released a statement saying “We must fight back for a better way. Listen to the women, For The People,” praising Patty Murray and Rosa DeLauro for presenting the case against the bill as Appropriations leaders. AOC continued this trend, harshly criticizing Schumer to the media. “I cannot underscore enough how incorrect that is if they vote for the CR (continuing resolution),” Ocasio-Cortez told NewsNation. “… I think it is a huge slap in the face, and I think that there’s a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as currently planned.” Ultimately, despite the backlash, Schumer voted to pass the bill along with; Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), Dick Durbin (IL), John Fetterman (PA), Kirsten Gillebrand (NY), Maggie Hassan (NH), Angus King (ME), Gary Peters (MI), Brian Schatz (HI), and Jeanna Shaheen (NH).
While the vote was over, the discourse was not. “CNN’s conversations with three-dozen Democratic senators, members of the House, top aides and other prominent leaders detail a cratering of support, with many starting to feel that he can’t be the party’s future and shouldn’t be their present.” This has been echoed by people such as Bernie Sanders, who stated this situation “was an absolute failure of democratic leadership.” Freshman Senator Adam Schiff called it “a bad day for our country – and for the Democratic Party.” Calls for Schumer to be primaried by AOC have been loud, and although the young representative hasn’t commented on her future plans, she was crystal clear in her criticisms. “Senate Dems have blown a hole in their ability to work with the House… They own what happens next.”