As you asked us to do 😉, as a Dem, I do like the increased funding for FAA to rebuild its infrastructure which, based on what I’ve read, is antiquated and understaffed. The addl monies for the Coast Guard seem good, too. However, all this increase with cuts to social programs makes me really pause. We need to increase income taxes and close tax loopholes for the wealthy top 1%. We need higher income tax brackets to support these increases.
I do like the increased funding to the Coast Guard. Living in a state that has one of the longest coastlines (Michigan) adjacent to a foreign country (Canada) there is always a need for the Coast Guard to keep our great lakes safe and stop illegal activity. I am angry about the zeroing out of penalties for ignoring CAFE standards. Not because it will make any difference but because of the stupidity of the reasoning. As a child of the auto industry, I know that every car takes 5-10 years from conception to design to engineering to tooling the line. This timeline doesn’t depend on who’s in the White House and what kind of stupid coal mining or gas drilling agenda they want to push. Car companies are not going back to a less efficient gas consuming car. Yes they can make more gas guzzling trucks but that doesn’t mean that the American public wants to buy them. The price of a car or truck is NEVER EVER going down again no matter how much gas is drilled or regulations are lifted or penalties are rescinded.
Although this deep dive into the big reconciliation bill (I refuse to call it ‘beautiful’) is definitely ‘nerdy’, I found it very enlightening and probably more in-depth analysis then even most representatives in Congress did! So kudos to you Gabe for this time-consuming but interesting work! Are there more sections to come? I heard some commentators claim that the act gives Trump even more executive powers but didn’t provide details. Are there more buried executive enhancements in there?
You ask "try to think about one thing you learned that you didn’t know was in the bill." I suspect that most people are like me and everything you pointed out I didn't know was in the bill!
As an old retired sailor, I am frequently in favor of increasing funds for national defense, however, the spending of this money, (Title III, Sec. 30004), I can not agree with.
"This section would add $1 billion to the pot of money that exists to help carry out DPA orders. President Trump most recently invoked the DPA in March with an executive order to boost domestic production of critical minerals, including by providing loans and capital assistance. (His Energy Secretary also designated coal as a “critical mineral” in May.)"
I am not in favor of "executive orders" regardless who is in the White House. My humble opinion, this $1 billion is a glorified "slush" fund.
I remember being woke up by my Mother to watch the Merecuy and Gemni launches in the 1960s. This resulted in my infatuation with space travel. So, I am in favor with this program. Scientific research always pays for itself. Just the opinion of an old hermit.
(Title IV, Sec. 40005, Mars Missions, Artemis Missions, and Moon to Mars Program)
"We’re going to Mars! Maybe. This section appropriates about $10 billion to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), including for the “Moon to Mars” program, a long-term initiative that hopes to once again land on the Moon and then eventually take humans to Mars."
Oh, one more rambling thought, I had my Mom buy "Tang"because our astronauts drank it.
I have been slowly working my way through this monstrosity of a spending bill. I am convinced that no member of the House of Representatives or Senate read the bill before voting. Just my thoughts on a complex topic. Thank-you for guiding me through the bill and explaining some of its nuances.
I’m an “I” although I can lean more toward “D” rather than “R”. Regarding CAFE, I think it is still important to strive for fuel efficiency. I can’t imagine the car companies rolling that back. When the cost of gasoline goes up a fuel efficient car makes a big difference.
I am thoroughly enjoying these analyses, Gabe. Thank you for doing them!
One thing I find myself wondering: what is the process by which an agency "obligates" their funding? Given that the OBBBA had been debated and revised for a while and the text was public knowledge, if I'm an administrator at NOAA, I know that the moment this is passed I will lose access to a lot of funding that hasn't already been obligated. So how do I obligate those funds? And by extension, how much is the recission in section 40008 *actually* clawing back?
I'm reminded of the trope in the business world of departments spending all of their remaining funds on potentially frivolous things in the last few weeks of the fiscal year, in the fear that coming in under budget means they'll have their budget reduced in the future. Or my partner needing to "use or lose" their HSA funds.
Republican here—I like practically everything you covered today, though I question why funds are being reduced for consumer protection. Seems like a billionaire wish list item.
Thanks for all your rork. I know how hard this is to do—when I was assigned to the Pentagon in the 1990s, part of my job was to go through the various drafts of the Defense authorization and appropriations acts to see what was going on. And even then, after exhaustive reviews by DoD and the services, we would always be surprised by some unexpected provisions stuck in the final law. We all know the old truism about making laws and making sausages.
My father was an air traffic controller and chief of the Midwest sector. The job is so demanding and stressful. Instructing new recruits was unbelievably taxing. The irony is my father would probably not be hired because he wouldn’t sign something saying he was an admiration of this current administration. It’s all a big joke.
Thank you for the enlightening explication! Now when adult Americans are walking around obese and toothless and American children are malnourished and badly educated we will know where the money that should be spent on healthcare and education is being spent. Shame on the Republicans!
As a liberal, there is only one thing here that I like - additional funds for Air Traffic Control. A lot of the rest is just gravy for the fossil fuels industry.
As you asked us to do 😉, as a Dem, I do like the increased funding for FAA to rebuild its infrastructure which, based on what I’ve read, is antiquated and understaffed. The addl monies for the Coast Guard seem good, too. However, all this increase with cuts to social programs makes me really pause. We need to increase income taxes and close tax loopholes for the wealthy top 1%. We need higher income tax brackets to support these increases.
I do like the increased funding to the Coast Guard. Living in a state that has one of the longest coastlines (Michigan) adjacent to a foreign country (Canada) there is always a need for the Coast Guard to keep our great lakes safe and stop illegal activity. I am angry about the zeroing out of penalties for ignoring CAFE standards. Not because it will make any difference but because of the stupidity of the reasoning. As a child of the auto industry, I know that every car takes 5-10 years from conception to design to engineering to tooling the line. This timeline doesn’t depend on who’s in the White House and what kind of stupid coal mining or gas drilling agenda they want to push. Car companies are not going back to a less efficient gas consuming car. Yes they can make more gas guzzling trucks but that doesn’t mean that the American public wants to buy them. The price of a car or truck is NEVER EVER going down again no matter how much gas is drilled or regulations are lifted or penalties are rescinded.
The air traffic control money was desperately needed and I hope it does in fact help the infrastructure of the system.
Although this deep dive into the big reconciliation bill (I refuse to call it ‘beautiful’) is definitely ‘nerdy’, I found it very enlightening and probably more in-depth analysis then even most representatives in Congress did! So kudos to you Gabe for this time-consuming but interesting work! Are there more sections to come? I heard some commentators claim that the act gives Trump even more executive powers but didn’t provide details. Are there more buried executive enhancements in there?
You ask "try to think about one thing you learned that you didn’t know was in the bill." I suspect that most people are like me and everything you pointed out I didn't know was in the bill!
As an old retired sailor, I am frequently in favor of increasing funds for national defense, however, the spending of this money, (Title III, Sec. 30004), I can not agree with.
"This section would add $1 billion to the pot of money that exists to help carry out DPA orders. President Trump most recently invoked the DPA in March with an executive order to boost domestic production of critical minerals, including by providing loans and capital assistance. (His Energy Secretary also designated coal as a “critical mineral” in May.)"
I am not in favor of "executive orders" regardless who is in the White House. My humble opinion, this $1 billion is a glorified "slush" fund.
I remember being woke up by my Mother to watch the Merecuy and Gemni launches in the 1960s. This resulted in my infatuation with space travel. So, I am in favor with this program. Scientific research always pays for itself. Just the opinion of an old hermit.
(Title IV, Sec. 40005, Mars Missions, Artemis Missions, and Moon to Mars Program)
"We’re going to Mars! Maybe. This section appropriates about $10 billion to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), including for the “Moon to Mars” program, a long-term initiative that hopes to once again land on the Moon and then eventually take humans to Mars."
Oh, one more rambling thought, I had my Mom buy "Tang"because our astronauts drank it.
I have been slowly working my way through this monstrosity of a spending bill. I am convinced that no member of the House of Representatives or Senate read the bill before voting. Just my thoughts on a complex topic. Thank-you for guiding me through the bill and explaining some of its nuances.
I’m an “I” although I can lean more toward “D” rather than “R”. Regarding CAFE, I think it is still important to strive for fuel efficiency. I can’t imagine the car companies rolling that back. When the cost of gasoline goes up a fuel efficient car makes a big difference.
I am thoroughly enjoying these analyses, Gabe. Thank you for doing them!
One thing I find myself wondering: what is the process by which an agency "obligates" their funding? Given that the OBBBA had been debated and revised for a while and the text was public knowledge, if I'm an administrator at NOAA, I know that the moment this is passed I will lose access to a lot of funding that hasn't already been obligated. So how do I obligate those funds? And by extension, how much is the recission in section 40008 *actually* clawing back?
I'm reminded of the trope in the business world of departments spending all of their remaining funds on potentially frivolous things in the last few weeks of the fiscal year, in the fear that coming in under budget means they'll have their budget reduced in the future. Or my partner needing to "use or lose" their HSA funds.
Republican here—I like practically everything you covered today, though I question why funds are being reduced for consumer protection. Seems like a billionaire wish list item.
Very grateful for the excellent analysis and as bridge builders, thank you for the question encouraging Ds and Rs to consider a different angle.
Thanks for all your rork. I know how hard this is to do—when I was assigned to the Pentagon in the 1990s, part of my job was to go through the various drafts of the Defense authorization and appropriations acts to see what was going on. And even then, after exhaustive reviews by DoD and the services, we would always be surprised by some unexpected provisions stuck in the final law. We all know the old truism about making laws and making sausages.
My father was an air traffic controller and chief of the Midwest sector. The job is so demanding and stressful. Instructing new recruits was unbelievably taxing. The irony is my father would probably not be hired because he wouldn’t sign something saying he was an admiration of this current administration. It’s all a big joke.
LIKE: the IDEA of cutting costs.
DISLIKE: cutting funding for environmental support, needy citizen support.
LEARNED: the current kind of Republican aligns with the historic kind re: SEC control.
WHY: can't they cut the pork instead? (suppose I do know :-)
Thank you for the enlightening explication! Now when adult Americans are walking around obese and toothless and American children are malnourished and badly educated we will know where the money that should be spent on healthcare and education is being spent. Shame on the Republicans!
As a liberal, there is only one thing here that I like - additional funds for Air Traffic Control. A lot of the rest is just gravy for the fossil fuels industry.
Thanks for these informative posts on the mega bill.
Dem here. I like SEC. 40003. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS. Surprised by the travel promotion fund.