Congress Just Voted To Let Trump Spend $1.4 Trillion, Much Of It On His Wasteful Corrupt Crap... And The Media Barely Said A Word About It

On Tuesday, the House voted on two bills-- basically an omnibus spending package, the annual last minute crappy spending bill ($1.4 trillion this time) that is always rumored to be, if unpassed, a harbinger of the end of the world. This time, because Trump said he wouldn't sign an overall bill, it was split between a domestic package (misleadingly named the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act) and a military package (misleadingly named the (the DHS Cyber Hunt and Incident Response Teams Act). This is so people trying to figure out how their members of Congress voted, will never be able to find out. One thing about Pelosi (D) and McCarthy (R)-- they have always hated democracy. The domestic version passed 297 to 120, which saw 218 Democrats voting yes, along with 79 Republicans. Only 7 Democrats voted against it (along with112 Republicans).

The other half was more controversial for progressives. It passed 280-138 and I was very, very proud to see so many progressives just say no. Finally!

There were 75 Democrats who stood up to House leadership and voted no. Among them... these two dozen:

• AOC (NY)
• Ted Lieu (CA)
• Pramila Jayapal (WA)
• Ro Khanna (CA)
• Barbara Lee (CA)
• Jan Shakowsky (IL)
• Andy Levin (MI)
• Rashida Tlaib (MI)
• Jamie Raskin (MD)
• Joe Neguse (CO)
• Deb Haaland (NM)
• Chuy Garcia (IL)
• Ilham Omar (MN)
• Steve Cohen (TN)
• Jimmy Gomez (CA)
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ)
• Nanette Barragán (CA)
• Raul Grijalva (AZ)
• Ayanna Pressley (MA)
• Judy Chu (CA)
• Al Lowenthal (CA)
• Jim McGovern (MA)
• Jared Huffman (CA)
• Mark DeSaulnier (CA)

Almost all the worthless freshmen stuck with the leadership on this, as did most of the Blue Dogs and New Dems. As did 130 Republicans, 62 voting no. Ted Lieu (D-CA) told us, when discussing the military bill, he "voted against this spending bill because I don't think it did enough to reign in the President's ability to transfer money to fund his stupid wall and other anti-immigrant practices. This is a balance of power issue. Congress has the power of the purse, the executive is supposed to execute the law, including our spending priorities."

Andy Levin explained his two votes-- one for and one against-- to his southeast Michigan constituents. Levin authored two amendments, a funding increase to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and an amendment barring assistance to the Haitian armed forces.

Right after the vote, he wrote that he was proud to vote for the domestic priorities and international assistance funding package that includes so many wins for Macomb and Oakland Counties. The package includes my request to increase funding for CSFP, an essential nutrition assistance program for vulnerable seniors, and, for the first time in more than two decades, the House has allocated funding for gun violence research. The package also includes funding increases for some of my top priorities in Congress, including worker protection agencies and programs, life-saving medical research at the National Institutes of Health, Pell Grants that make college more accessible to low income families, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and a guarantee that those funds will be available in case of a government shutdown, increased funding for Registered Apprenticeship Programs, and more."

He also wrote that "Despite the many victories in the package, I wish there were more. I regret that my amendment to shift funds to the Department of Education watchdog agency was not included. Betsy DeVos has abandoned her duty to stand up for students and follow the law, and now more than ever, we must make sure our oversight agencies are fully equipped. There were also many important provisions included in the military spending package, like increased funding for research into the health effects of PFAS and PFOA exposure, a pay raise for federal employees, preservation of the 6-day postal service, and security assistance for Israel. However, the package allocates exorbitant funds for military spending and fails to place guard rails on the Department of Homeland Security, which has abused past funding with the intention of building the President’s wasteful and ineffective border wall. As a Member of Congress, I am charged to be a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars and a check on the Executive Branch. To meet those responsibilities, I voted against the military spending package."

I asked some of the 2020 congressional candidates how they would have voted. After Chicagoland Blue Dog voted yes on both, his progressive opponent, Marie Newman said, "I will say something positive about this bill: it restores funding of gun violence prevention research. However, it also, enables the ongoing inhumanity at the border and empowers the building of a ridiculous wall. I am disappointed by several things in this spending bill. My opponent is supportive of the wall, so it is easy to see why he so quickly voted yes."

Another Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran (AZ), voted yes on both. His progressive opponent, Eva Putzova explained that "Our military spending is out of control and I would have not supported an additional $22 billion that goes straight into the pockets of private contractors. This not only translates into more willingness to engage in conflicts militarily but also has an incredibly detrimental impact on climate change. When my opponent takes money from the arms industry I’m not surprised he also legislates in their interest."

Most active duty service members seem to understand that Trump's policies reflected in the military spending bill are not to help them in any way. A brand new poll for the Military Times shows that Trump's approval in underwater among members of the Armed Forces.

When asked specifically about Trump’s handling of military issues, nearly 48 percent of the troops surveyed said they had an unfavorable view of that part of his job, compared to 44 percent who believe he has handled that task well. That marks a significant drop from the 2018 Military Times poll, when 59 percent said they were happy with his handling of military issues, against 20 percent who had an unfavorable view.

...Some of the shift in military sentiments could be linked to the firing of Mattis, who a year after his dismissal still enjoys an exceptionally high-- 86 percent-- favorability rating among all service members in the poll.

Trump’s replacement for Mattis, current Defense Secretary Mark Esper, does not inspire strong feelings one way or the other. Esper drew a 24 percent approval rating from troops and a 20 percent disapproval rating, with 56 percent saying they have no strong opinion of the Pentagon leader.

...When asked about Trump’s decision to use military construction funds to build his controversial southern border wall, 59 percent said they disapprove of his decision. More than half rated current U.S. relations with “traditional allies” like NATO as poor.

...Troops were split evenly on the ongoing impeachment proceedings in Congress. In the poll, 47 percent said they back the impeachment, 46 percent said they were opposed. That’s roughly the same breakdown as the rest of the American public.

Feaver called that an interesting and potentially problematic finding, given that Trump will still be commander in chief if he is impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate.

“I’m sure senior leaders won’t be happy seeing that half of them wanted him impeached, given the efforts to keep troops out of politics," Feaver said.

More than three-fourths of troops surveyed said they believe the military community has become more polarized in recent years, with about 40 percent saying they have seen significantly more division in the ranks.

Democratic socialist Heidi Sloan, who's in a tough campaign against wealthy and ethics-challenged used car salesman Roger Williams (R-TX), told us that, unlike him, she would have voted against the military funding bill as it now stands. "Once again our representatives have missed an opportunity to fight back against Trump's racist, wasteful border wall. It's no surprise that my opponent Roger Williams welcomed yet another increase in military spending, making the biggest chunk of our government budget even bigger while our veterans often lack decent housing and healthcare at home. I would have voted no on this bill in solidarity with the Progressive and Hispanic Caucuses, the immigrant community, and the working class. Our people deserve to be prioritized over military contractors and a racist's pet project."

Rachel Ventura, a member of the Will County Board, is running for Congress to represent a Chicagoland district held by New Dem Bill Foster, who voted for both bills. Ventura told us she wouldn't have. "I would have voted 'no' on the massive, $1.4 trillion dollar spending bill that included funding for Trump’s border wall, a ballooning pentagon budget that never seems to stop growing, and unchecked abuses in the detention centers at our southern border. If nobody has asked the all important first question about this $1.4 trillion spending bill, let me be the first; 'how are you going to pay for it?' Why is it when it comes to defense funding, wall building or the funding of private prisons on our southern border that we always have money. When it comes to climate or healthcare legislation Republicans and corporate Democrats always balk and ask how it would be paid for. Today I have an answer. The misguided $1.4 trillion spending bill is the best place to start cutting if we want to fund the priorities that most Americans have, healthcare, renewable energy and good paying jobs. As a future member of the progressive caucus I would have voted against funding Donald Trump’s radical agenda and stood with other progressive caucus members and the Hispanic Caucus. This blank check to Donald Trump allows him to continue with human rights abuses at the southern border by locking kids in cages and separating them from their families. Just last week we saw the video of a child dying in custody at the border. The fact that an additional $22 billion was added to our defense budget is unbelievable and reflects the misguided priorities of the current congressman. I understand that a government shutdown may have been the potential outcome, but I would argue that we could have maintained the diet-budget agreement, or the sequestration caps."