OPINION: Spending bill grinch signals future problems

Just in time for Christmas, Congress passed a spending bill, keeping the federal government operating until March.

But the grinch was in the details. Originally, there was a bipartisan agreement poised to sail through both houses before the Dec. 20 deadline when the federal government would have shut down due to lack of funding. However, President-elect Donald Trump said he did not want that bill to pass, he wanted to eliminate some spending while raising the national debt ceiling.

Although Trump said he had no problem with sending money to farmers and disaster relief for North Carolina after Hurricane Helene, doubts were sown about money for a sweeping health care package with pharmacy reforms and money to repair the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, among other things that were part of the original bipartisan bill.

Overall, it appeared the national debt ceiling was the real issue, with the incoming administrating wanting more borrowing power by the U.S. government. Currently, that limit is $31.38 trillion, but Trump said the limit needs to be higher.

After the bipartisan bill failed, a second bill with a higher debt ceiling also failed as 38 Republican representatives — including Idaho’s Rep. Russ Fulcher — fought back against increasing the debt limit by another $5 trillion.

Why is all this important? It is important on two fronts:

First, economists say raising the debt limit means the U.S. will ultimately be in more debt to international banks and other countries, creating a devastating scenario should the U.S. default. Raising the limit would also downgrade credit rating agencies, increase borrowing costs for businesses and homeowners, increase interest rates, endanger consumer confidence and possibly create a severe stock market dip or crash.

Second, it shows how at least the next year will play out in Washington with an administration making demands on a Congress which may choose to balk.

Part of the problem with the Trump replacement bill was the fact Elon Musk was inserted into the process. Having the world’s richest man, a naturalized U.S. citizen from South Africa, tell Congress they should not pass any bills until Jan. 20, that it was OK to shut government down, was at best off-putting to many people.

But to shut off paychecks to thousands of federal workers and force critical employees — such as air traffic controllers — to work without pay at Christmas was seen as downright un-Americans by many.

In the end, the House passed a spending bill nearly identical to the original bipartisan bill on the afternoon of Dec. 20, and the Senate passed the measure shortly after midnight the next morning. On Dec. 22, President Joe Biden signed the bill, extending government operations into March and Trump’s watch.

What this whole episode signals is Congress does not seem willing to follow all administration orders just because leadership calls for certain bills to be passed. It also demonstrates sending in surrogates like Musk and his co-DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) head Vivek Ramaswamy, two unelected leaders of a new agency without previous U.S. government experience, may not be effective. It also indicates there could be trouble securing money for the administration’s agenda.

In addition. there is the question of who is truly leading Congress — the administration, Musk and Ramaswamy, or the Senate President Pro Tempe and the Speaker of the House? How will Democrats, businesses and other countries know to whom they need to negotiate for laws and other transactions? Clarity is needed.

There are a lot of questions yet to be answered. The spending bill simply keeping the government operating should have been an easy pass after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations between Republicans and Democrats. However, that did not happen because three businessmen (Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy) all argued for the ability to borrow more money on behalf of the government. A move 38 Republicans considered a step too far.

Next year, Congress will consider a new spending bill, moves to reduce the federal government and possibly the ability of the federal government to borrow more money.

For those watching, the words of Bette Davis in “All About Eve” come to mind: “Buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

Tallent was a journalism faculty member at the University of Idaho for 13 years before her retirement in 2019. She is of Cherokee descent and is a member of both the Indigenous Journalists Association and the Society of Professional Journalists. She also writes for FaVS (Faith and Values) News.