POLS 105 Paper Assignment-Spending Bill

IDENTIFICATION OF BILL

Bill is understood as legislation (suggested), which is under consideration (lawmakers are debating it) by lawmakers of upper and lower chambers of a bicameral legislature (usually a legislature is bicameral. For a bill to become law, it is imperative that the legislature must pass it. Until it is approved by the legislature, in the case of the United States by both Congress and Senate, a bill does not translate into law. Once a bill becomes law, it is executed by an institution/department of government (state/federal) (Hill).

For this academic exercise, we have selected spending bill/appropriations bill, which nature is omnibus. Various regular appropriation bills constitute spending bill, of such nature. Such bills are special, as they are also considered fiscal bills, which have great influence on the economy; therefore, passing of such bill becomes a highly sensitive and contested matter, as it has very broad implications. Also, a spending bill facilitates a government in implementing its political-economic agenda (Schallhorn).

A bill, which funds the federal government for a fiscal year, is usually large, is why such bill has great political significance. Spending Bill for the fiscal year 2018 was 2,232 pages long, and it provided detail regarding the various segments of spending (Kaplan).

VOTES TO PASS THE BILL

According to the retrieved information, Congress approved the Spending Bill with 256 votes, whereas 167 votes were cast against it. Most of the votes that were cast against the proposed bill were cast by fiscal-conservative lawmakers. These lawmakers are usually against extravagant fiscal spending and believe that the size of government must be small.

In the Senate, the bill passed with 65 votes, whereas 32 votes were cast against the $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill, for the fiscal year 2018. In Senate too, fiscal-conservative senators did not support the bill. However, in the Senate too, Spending Bill passed with quite ease, as more than double of the senators, who opposed the bill, supported the bill (Brufke).

VARIOUS SEGMENTS/PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

1. The bill increases spending on defense by $80 billion. Most of the support, for the increase in Defense Budget, came from Republican Senators. Historically, the Republican Party and its lawmakers have supported an increase in defense spending. (Note: this increase in defense funding includes an increase in pay by 2.4%. The overall defense budget, which is $700 billion for the year 2007, includes the purchase of $144 billion hardware for the Pentagon).
2. Domestic spending, which is another major aspect of the $1.3 trillion bill, has increased by $63 billion. Democrats favored the domestic spending, which made the passing of bill smoother and less cumbersome.
3. Various segments of domestic spending are, 1) Infrastructure, Program for Veterans, Funds for Medical Research, Opioid Epidemic, etc. The domestic spending also includes an increase in pay for, around 1.9%, for Civilian Federal Employees (Bernastein).
4. Funds have also been allocated for erecting walls and barriers along the US-Mexican border. Total funds allocated for the barriers along the border are $1.6 billion. This fund is further segmented, which means it will be spent on various aspects of wall and barriers. For instance, around $251 million will be spent on secondary fencing near San Diego.
5. Bill will swell funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This funding will allow President Trump to enforce his immigration policy more robustly
6. Part of this comprehensive bill is bi-partisan legislation, Fix NICS. It intends to improve background checks. There is a consensus among both parties, Republican and Democrats, that National Instant Criminal Background Check System is flawed and therefore, it is imperative to improve it to control gun violence effectively.
7. Other contents of bill pertain to taxes, Foreign Policy, Sports, Internal Revenue Service, etc. (DeBonis)

THE POSITION OF BOTH PARTIES

Democrats considered Spending Bill an opportunity to implement the Democratic Party’s agenda (to whatever extent possible). When we methodically study Spending Bill for the fiscal year 2018, it becomes quite evident that a Republican President, Donald Trump, has to give and take to pass $1.3 trillion fiscal bills. For instance, to increase the defense budget, around $80 billion, not only the Republican President/party had to agree on an increase in Domestic Spending, but also had to shun Healthcare measure, which had such language that seriously undermined the health care system. Democrats were ready for more changes to Obama Care after Cost-Sharing Reduction in the fall.

Some sub-legislation, such as Fix NICS ACT was bipartisan legislation, which aimed to improve National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which was great scrutiny after recent incidents of gun violence.

There are few other examples of giving and take, which include Border Wall, which funds are included in Spending Bill for the fiscal year 2018. Also, in this bill, funds have also been allocated for Election Security, which intends to make the election process more systematic and secure. After alleged Russian hacking, Democrats were excited to improve electoral process and election security. Republican were not ready to fund this project, as it would have been considered a subtle acknowledgment of Russian meddling. However, the Presidency and Republican Party succumbed to the pressure and agreed to allocate funds (approve Election Security Bill).

INTEREST GROUPS

Interest groups play a major role in American politics, as they are allowed to lobby. Most popular tools of these groups are 1) use of media and 2) campaign financing. As large corporations that desire more favorable conditions usually fund these groups; therefore, it is not difficult for these groups to operate and realize their objectives. Evidence reveals that in United States’ political-economic system, the role and influence of interest groups have grown enormously. After Citizen United verdict of the Supreme Court, which allowed corporations to fund massively in during election campaigns? This ruling facilitated special interest groups to influence the political-economic system of the United States, which have yielded complications of a certain type.

In Spending Bill too, the footprint of special interest groups is very apparent and large. For instance, the increase in the defense budget is because of the effective lobbying and forming of opinion in favor modernization of the military to meet new challenges. Also, despite an increase in gun violence and strong public opinion in favor of gun control, both parties, Republican and Democrat, are not willing to introduce a law that bans guns, despite enormous evidence in favor of it. Evidence suggests that NRA’s lobbying is very effective and despite all the anger and commotion against gun violence, both parties refrained from banning guns or even debating ban on weapons/guns.

MEDIA COVERAGE

Mainstream media fully covered spending Bill and all its aspects. On social media too, Spending Bill was through debated and discussed. It is also evident that some aspects of it were not discussed in detail for different reasons. For instance, most of the media houses, such as Fox News, subtly justified an increase in the defense budget. The argument, in print and electronic media, was that Russia, Iran, and IS were posing new threats, which were essential to tackle and tacking on this issue required a substantial increase in the defense budget.

The coverage regarding improvement in National Instant Criminal Background Check System was quite fairly covered. It was discussed in detail how effective this policy would be and “what are the difficulties in implementing a complete ban on guns.”

Other sub-legislations or allocations of funds have also been discussed in detail. For instance, Spending Bill grants for the FBI were $9.03 billion for both salaries and expenses. The increase was around 4307 million more than what current Administration had originally requested. It again reveals that both parties came together to pass the spending bill and both parties moved from their actual positions to pass a spending bill for the fiscal year.

PUBLIC OPINION/PLL ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS OF SPENDING BILL

Gun Control

More Americans believe that before those guns are a serious concern, which must be addressed immediately. Parkland shooting, which erupted spontaneous demonstrations against the NRA and in favor of gun control, played an important part in changing in changing opinion (of many) in favor of gun control. As per evidence, after Park Land Shooting, the shift in points, about gun control, was between 7 to 18 points (highest shift observed was 18, and the low was 7). Most of the polls suggest that people have become more receptive regarding the issue of gun control. However, United States remain divided on the matter of gun control, which also reflects in legislation/bill (Matthews).

Defense Budget

Most of the polls, about the defense budget, suggest that Americans are not happy or convinced with additional spending on Defense. However, despite the public sentiment against more spending on the war machine, Trump Administration has increased defense budget around $80 billion and intends to increase further in the year 2019 (Newport).

WHAT ACTION HAS THE WHITE HOUSE TAKEN?

Trump Administration was genuinely concerned regarding the Spending Bill, as it was finding it difficult to pass the bill. Government Shutdown would have been a great embarrassment and to avoid it, the Republican Party and Trump Administration commenced structured engagements with Democrats. The objective was passed spending bill (appropriations) without losing much ground. Democrats and Republicans sat together and discussed various sub-legislations to develop consensus on the bill. It gives and take left-out some legislation and amended others. For instance, Healthcare measures, which were suggested by GOP Senators, were repudiated by Democrats, and eventually, they were left out of that bill. The issue, that Democrat had been with the language of the bill, which GOP was attempting to make part of the spending bill.

On several issues, Trump Administration/Republican Party developed a consensus, and some sub-legislation became bipartisan legislation, which included Fix NICS ACT.

Trump Administration did not veto the bill, as it was the prime objective of the Trump Administration to pass Spending Bill (appropriations). For that purpose, Trump Administration and Republican Party negotiated with Democrat lawmakers and agreed to develop a consensus on particular sub-legislations or proposals.

OUTCOME

The outcome of this entire congressional exercise was that spending bill was approved without any difficulty. Both parties tried to take credit for the approval of $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill. Some of the Senators and Representatives opposed the bill for different reasons. The majority of these opposing Senators and Representatives opposed it because of the fiscal-deficit it would create.

REACTION

I find it interesting that role of special interest groups has grown exponentially in American political-economic system. Also, it was surprising to me that how large corporations form opinions and influence the political system.

Bipartisan legislation proves that democrats and republicans can work together despite their differences. In fact, the framers of the constitution have ensured that different political parties and branches of government rely on one another to bring substantial change to the system. When such constitutional avenues of cooperation are explored and exploited, with sincerity, they produce great results.

 Work Cited

Bernastein, Jonathan. “5 Questions (and Answers) on the Spending Bill.” Bloomberg. Bloomberg, 27 March 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-27/five-more-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-spending-bill.

Brufke, Juliegrace. “House easily passes $1.3 trillion spending bill.” The Hill. The Hill, 22 March 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/379753-house-passes-13-trillion-spending-bill.

DeBonis, Mike. “Here’s what Congress is stuffing into its $1.3 trillion spending bill.” The Washington Post, The Washington Post, 22 March 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d202e8bbccd9.

Hill, Kenneth L. An Essential Guide to American Politics and the American Political System. 1. Author House, 2012.

Kaplan, Thomas. “Congress Approves $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill, Averting a Shutdown.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 March 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/house-passes-spending-bill.html.

Matthews, Dylan. “More Americans say guns are the country’s top issue than ever have before.” Vox. Vox, 29 March 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/3/29/17157468/parkland-shooting-public-opinion-gun-control-gun-law-polling.

Newport, Frank. “Americans Not Convinced U.S. Needs to Spend More on Defense.” News Gallup. News Gallup, 21 February 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. http://news.gallup.com/poll/228137/americans-not-convinced-needs-spend-defense.aspx.

Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. “What’s in Congress’ spending bill? 5 things to know about the omnibus package.” Fox News. Fox News, 23 March 2018. Web. 26 April 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/23/whats-in-congress-spending-bill-5-things-to-know-about-omnibus-package.html.