The Senate’s “minibus” spending bill lumps together three appropriations bills—Commerce/Justice/Science, Transportation/Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture—into one funding bill. The proposed minibus bill (which has recently stalled in the Senate) not only continues to fund programs that don’t work; it actually proposes to toss them more money in the process.
Just consider the $51.2 billion Commerce/Justice/Science portion of the bill. While Heritage proposed $2.6 billion in initial savings through cutting unnecessary and ineffective programs, the Senate bill would actually increase funding to these wasteful programs compared with the House’s proposal.
The most egregious example is the Senate’s proposed funding for the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS). COPS is designed to bolster local and state law enforcement, but it has failed to fulfill its goals and has done little to reduce overall crime rates despite millions in federal investment. Heritage expert David Muhlhausen also notes that COPS exceeds the boundaries of federal power, as the program “effectively reassigns to the federal government the powers and responsibilities that fall squarely within the expertise, historical control, and constitutional authority of state and local governments.”
While the House’s proposal at least kept funding for COPS flat at $96.5 million for 2015, the Senate’s version of the bill would more than double spending on this ineffective program to $224 million.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) stated that the “manner in which we handle these funding measures will largely dictate how other appropriations bills are managed over the coming months.” However, Senator Reid’s insistence on limiting amendments has halted debate on the bill in the chamber, setting a poor precedent for the spending bills to come. Reid’s limitations on amendments would reduce legislators’ ability to modify undesirable aspects of the bill before it is brought to a vote and otherwise impedes Congress’s duty to debate and pass appropriations bills rather than rely on short-term funding measures.Indeed, without debate and an open process, the prospect for spending reform in the appropriations process looks all the more grim.
If eliminating wasteful spending through appropriations continues to prove implausible for Congress, a new mechanism such as an independent Government Waste Commission may be necessary to root out inappropriate spending. But rather than viewing appropriations as a means to pump more money into existing programs, Congress should use the power of the purse to more effectively prioritize spending, starting with the elimination of ineffective and wasteful federal initiatives.
