The $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill: President Trump will Hear Conservatives, Unlike Governor Rauner

Written by John Biver

Many Fiscal conservatives need to be talked off the ledge since President Donald Trump signed the massive $1.3 trillion budget that Congress dumped on his desk.

Unfortunately, President Trump signed the bill, though he is listening to those who wanted him to veto it.

Trump isn’t Bruce Rauner, who claimed on election night last week that he “heard” the message 48.6% of Republican voters voiced by siding with Jeanne Ives.

Rauner will not change his ways. Can you see him vetoing every single radical social agenda bill that seeks his signature? Can you see him finally learning how to lead as governor? Can you see him effectively using his bully pulpit to move public opinion to support the right kinds of reforms? I cannot see it.

Back to Trump and the $1.3 million-dollar omnibus spending bill. In an article titled “‘Never again’: Trump’s promise against signing huge spending bills will be hard to keep,” S.A. Miller explains in the Washington Times why it will be difficult for Trump to keep that promise.

President Trump vowed he would never get snookered into signing another one of Congress‘ bloated, budget-busting spending bills, but the resounding response from Washington was “fat chance.”

Longtime budget watchdogs — the same folks whose alarms went mostly unheeded as the national debt nearly quadrupled to $21 trillion over the past two decades — say it’s more likely that Mr. Trump will be gritting his teeth repeatedly and inking his name on more massive spending monstrosities to come.

After all, the same pressures that forced Mr. Trump to sign a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill Friday will be just as powerful when the 2019 funding package lands on his desk.

In the same article, Andrew Roth of the Club for Growth defends the president: “President Trump shares the same disgust that most Americans have with Congress, and this bill was a perfect example of that.”

Will it be difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. That’s why Trump was elected. As for this budget, Trump “called the legislative process that produced the bill ridiculous.”

“It became so big because we need to take care of our military. And because the Democrats, who don’t believe in that, added things that they wanted in order to get their votes,” he said.

Looking for more leverage in the next spending battle, Mr. Trump called on the Senate to eliminate the filibuster and Congress to give him a line-item veto.

. . .

Senate Republican leaders have repeatedly balked at Mr. Trump’s calls to end the filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation.

Here’s an odd fact of present day life that was recently pointed out to me: A person can get elected to Congress with 50% + 1 vote (a simple majority), while legislation needs 60% to pass.

Why do senators love the 60-vote rule? Monty Pelerin answers in an op ed titled “‘Drain the Swamp’ Becomes ‘Remove the Cancer’”: “Many in this country still do not believe how corrupt their government is.” “To the horde of thieves inside the Beltway,” Pelerin explains, “he is the million-in-one shot. As such, he is now a threat that cannot be tolerated”:

Trump is a threat to the wealth accumulation of the criminals. Members of both parties are against him, although Republicans are more cautious and sneaky in their opposition. The wealth of many inside the Beltway is at stake. So too is their freedom from prosecution. Ditto for very, very powerful beneficiaries outside the Beltway.

If you think Pelerin is over-stating the case, read what else he has to say:

Trump has taken on the biggest and most powerful criminal cartel in the world.  This cartel includes the police at least at the federal level (FBI, CIA, NSA). It consists of well dressed, quasi-educated types who gain office and then plunder the people they are supposed to represent. It also consists of a Pravda-like media out to protect the existing criminal cartel.

Major businesses are at risk. They provide both hidden and unhidden benefits to officeholders as the quid for the quo of favorable legislation. It is never out of respect that a business contributes to a politician. These “contributions” are investments made only because they yield profitable returns for the provider.

Pelerin also touches on the Robert Mueller investigation, which he says is “supported by both parties” as a way to “remove Trump from office.”

While Trump fights, what are Trump supporters supposed to do? Some commentators are saying that it’s time to stay home on election day and let the GOP-led Congress lose their majority. Brian C. Joondeph, writing at American Thinker, asks: “Why Vote Republican?”

The reasons are obvious. While Chuck and Nancy might be happy about this $1.3 trillion debacle, they are not happy with the rest of the Trump agenda. Trump got the military spending he wanted. Trump is not stupid enough to fail to eventually get funding for the wall. Good judicial appointments, the purging of regulations, and a smarter foreign policy continues only under Trump and a Republican Congress.

This is not fun to say but it’s true: there are more conservative that whine about what the RINOs are doing than engage and fight effectively in the political arena. This isn’t a spectator sport — your help is required — from the school board to the halls of Congress.

Up next: The $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill: NeverTrumpers Squeal With Joy.

IFA depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-