The shutdown that wasn't

Maybe this is the last time we kick the can down the road? I can only hope.

Maybe the state Democrats liked it, but America wasn’t ready for a #SchumerShutdown.

On Friday we found out two of our stooges voted no in the Senate against the latest continuing resolution to keep the government going until September 30. (As, I’m sure, the third Stooge did in the House earlier in the week.)

But their plans of obstruction were foiled by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who threw his support behind the cloture motion on the Senate floor Thursday. It was the better of two choices he considered bad, either accepting a budget deal with modest cuts and bumps in existing spending or putting Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought (the impetus behind Project 2025) in charge. Don’t you just love it when Democrats have the choice of two rakes to step on?

I don’t do this too often, but it turns out this was my subject at The Patriot Post this week and the article there is worth revisiting as we now know the CR’s fate.

The part of the discussion I found most fascinating was about rescission, or the act of pulling back money that was appropriated, per the President’s request. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) hasn’t been used much on that level since Ronald Reagan - although Donald Trump tried back in 2018 - but as explained on Congress.gov:

Under the ICA, however, whenever a President wishes to permanently withhold funds from obligation, he must submit a special rescission message to Congress. Under the ICA, funds can be withheld from obligation for a period of 45 days of continuous session (as defined in the act) after the receipt of this special presidential message. After this period, funds withheld under this authority must be released for obligation unless Congress has completed action on a bill to rescind the budget authority. If the President proposes to defer obligating funds, he must send a special message justifying the deferral. The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is granted responsibilities in the act to oversee and enforce executive branch compliance.

Second, the ICA established legislative procedures that the House and Senate can choose to use to facilitate their consideration of legislation to enact rescissions proposed by the President. These procedures include limits on debate time, which effectively eliminates the need to invoke cloture to reach a final vote on the bill. These expedited procedures are available only during the period when funds may be withheld from obligation. The procedure in the ICA, however, is not the exclusive means for considering rescissions, nor is there any requirement that the House or Senate must use this procedure (or any other) to consider rescission requests transmitted by the President. Congress has used this procedure infrequently, and as a consequence there are few precedents or examples to guide its interpretation and application.

One thing that surprised me about the concept is that it never showed up in Project 2025. The only mention of the word is in a footnote where “rescission” is in the title of an executive order by Joe Biden. But it seems like a handy way to take care of excess spending that DOGE found in the near-term while we wipe it out in the FY2026 budget. Why wait?

Let’s say that Congress passes what I’ll call the Rescission Act of 2025, one that eliminates a whole range of spending. Surely someone will drag it into court, and the process will be held up - but quick action by SCOTUS to determine the Constitutional ramifications of such an act would be helpful going forward in terms of defining the available toolbox of limiting government.

And consider the pincer movement this creates should rescission be allowed to proceed: action on spending on one side and action of regulations on the other, hopefully culminating with a more streamlined government and booming economy by mid-2026 and the wipeout of more Congressional Democrats (as well as midterm gains in the several states.)

Perhaps voting “no” to government reform will spell the 2026 end of the political careers of both Senator Chris Coons (whose 16 years in office have been less than remarkable) and Rep. Tim Sarah McBride, whose two years in office will be little remembered aside from being yet another DEI experiment by gullible Delaware voters.

Two good Republican candidates can make the difference. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with LBR until 2030, but she can be a true minority for the last four years, both in the Senate and the state delegation.

In the meantime, though, you can Buy Me a Coffee, since I have a page there now.