
Jesse Sheets
16.4K posts

Jesse Sheets
@J_Sheets08
Enjoy 🏈, wrestling, music, stand up. Conservative Republican, not a party apologist. Fair & balanced criticism. Not perfect…, not as smart as I used to be.





🇺🇸








NYT: June 4, 2023 Biden was “sharp and commanding in private” according to “people who deal with him regularly” and even “has at times exhibited striking stamina” in his traveling since taking office.



Massie defacto did, and that's what's important. By voting for the governing fiscal framework that set the caps and removed the ceiling fight, he voted for the structure under which that spending occurred. So the specific bill that Massie is talking about here is the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. So let's talk about it. Just for the record, Massie voted for this bill, he was the deciding vote in Committee, and 1 of 300+ on the floor. (Which means he could have changed it to be much better in Committee) So what did it do? Well first off Massie is incorrect, it did not "increase" the debt limit, it straight up suspended it until Jan 2025. Meaning that Biden never lived under the threat of a default, why is that important? Well the Debt Limit is an important tool made by Congress. They get to cap the limit, and the President really can't ignore it, and it gives the House quite a bit of leverage over the President. So why did we get rid of the debt limit for Biden? No clue, the House GOP not using the power of the purse to help reign in Biden was dumb, and this law removed that leverage. Next, Massie says he voted to *suspend* the debt limit in exchange for a law that said spending would be cut 1% if we (House GOP) did a CR. So that is incorrect. The Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) does have a built in 1% cut, but how does it work? On paper if the House fails to pass the 12 appropriations by the end of the fiscal year, then there is a 1% mandatory cut to defense and non defense discretionary funding, but how did it actually work? On paper, it doesn't actually care about the October deadline, it actually only cares about two deadlines, a soft deadline, and a hard deadline (our words). So the first "soft deadline" is January. In which if the 12 appropriations are not passed, then there is supposed to be the 1% cut. HOWEVER, the actual mechanisms for the 1% cut is in APRIL. So as long as some form of the 12 appropriations pass before April, no cuts happen. Combined with the fact that the 1% cut, would have to automatically hit defense, and non defense, that means that the House has a reason to pass appropriations BEFORE the enforcement mechanism happens. Which there is nothing to enforce the cut before hand. Which means this law that removed leverage from Biden, did not change much how the House handled things. So let's look at the years since then. FY 2023 - Already happened when the law passed. FY 2024 - Yes, the government missed the first October deadline, but by the end of it, all 12 appropriations were passed before April 2024, meaning no cut. FY 2025 - March 2025, all 12 Appropriations Acts were passed. Thus we did not reach the April 1st, when the actual cuts become mandatory. FY 2026 - So far 11/12 appropriations have passed, and unless the DHS Bill is held up until April 1st, then there will be no cuts, in accordance to the law. See the ultimate issue with this law is that it was a get out of jail free card for Biden, because the House gave up most of its leverage. While shutdowns are nice leverages, debt limit threats are much stronger. Massie claims that "Mike Johnson found a way around that law", no it had terrible enforcement mechanics (Hmm, terribly written laws? How familiar!). This law did have some upsides, it was not a 100% failure. It did cap discretionary growth relative to a baseline, it also did claw back some COVID funding, but was it worth removing such a key piece of leverage over Biden? We don't think so.

America First > MAGA































