President Donald Trump became a one-man Department of Government Efficiency this week by wielding a rarely used presidential power: The pocket rescission.
The presidential action flabbergasted the spend-lusting senators in Washington, D.C. who apparently had never heard of such a thing.
"Cut spending? Who the hell does that?" an anonymous and possibly imaginary senator was heard reacting to the maneuver in the Senate cloakroom.
It is with this particular context in mind that we turn our sights to Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson, who relishes playing the role of spoiler amid the bacchanalian frivolity of our craven political class.
When Johnson ensured the president's $810 million in spending cuts, senators were aghast. They were baffled. Flabbergasted even. One might even say they were perplexed and flummoxed beyond belief.
If you are conjuring up an image of Chuck Schumer breathing into a brown paper bag to prevent himself from hyperventilating, then you get the right idea.
Thus, when Politico reported the news on Wednesday night that Johnson had stymied Schumer on the pocket rescission issue, it would have set up a fantastic rendition of Paul Harvey's "the rest of the story."
Sen. Ron Johnson blocked the Senate from passing a bill Wednesday to restore $810 million in federal funding President Donald Trump nixed Friday without Congress’ consent and stop him from using the controversial budget tactic again.
Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Patty Murray of Washington asked on the Senate floor to swiftly pass a measure that would nullify Trump’s latest move to unilaterally cancel money Congress appropriated and prevent similar attempts by blocking the president from sending requests to claw back federal dollars less than 90 days before the cash expires.
While objecting to passing the bill, Johnson said he supports the president doing “whatever it takes” to reduce federal spending.
“Personally, I wish it was a lot larger,” Johnson, who chairs the Budget Committee, said of the funds Trump canceled Friday. “That money doesn’t have to be spent, and it shouldn’t be spent.”
It would be remiss not to mention a certain anti-Trump peach of a Maine senator Susan Collins, who has threatened to dust off legislative action that would hamper Trump's pocket rescissions moving ahead.
That curiosity aside, this makes this bill effectively dead-on-arrival for this fiscal year, since the Oregon senators tried to pass it through unanimous consent. The money expires tonight and the House is already out until after the midterms, and there is no realistic path to get a bill through both chambers and onto the president’s desk before the funds lapse.
Trump’s cancellation therefore stands. Checkmate.
This was enough to give Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley a serious case of the vapors. He bemoaned Trump's funding slash as akin to “a line-item veto” that takes “a wrecking ball” to the vision of the founding fathers.
Boy, wait til he finds out what James Madison actually thought about Washington, D.C.'s never-ending spending.
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
This raises an outstanding question: Are we even talking about funding for "the general welfare"? Or are we talking about "Woke welfare"?
If you are guessing, "Why, that goofy senator must be upset about some uniparty slush fund that is being cut off, kind of like USAID," then congratulations, you get how Washington works.
That is because President Trump canceled $810 million set aside for dubious programs that included refugee assistance, migrant education and diversity initiatives.
Now, you get what all of the caterwauling is about. The White House said the programs were unnecessary, arguing that the sharp decline in illegal border crossings had cut the need for the spending.
But, of course, this hits the uniparty machine where it hurts: Somebody's palm isn't getting greased by the waste, fraud, and abuse that has become the only thing being served up by Washington instead of solutions.
That makes Donald Trump more of an enemy of the deep state than anything else. It is not as if the uniparty machine cares about ethics; it's all about who gets paid.
Trump has deep pockets. If he can stuff a few more trillion dollars in there, so he can give it back to us taxpayers, then I am all for it.
Editor’s Note: Republicans are fighting for election integrity by requiring proper identification to vote. It's common sense, yet Democrats are spreading lies about the impact of such a measure.
Help us continue to call out these lies by joining RedState VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.