It's on Schumer. It's on establishment Dems

[CrispyQ]

52. Is this basically the bill they're voting on? This doc is a week old.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/250308_johnsons_yearlong_crpdf.pdf

snip...

Instead of staying at the negotiating table to pass bipartisan full-year funding bills, Republican
leadership walked away, and House Republicans have now released a partisan, full-year
continuing resolution (CR) they plan to vote on early next week.

As suspected, this full-year CR would hand vast discretion over spending decisions to
President Trump and his administration to zero out programs and redirect funding as they
see fit.

➢ Whereas Congress typically provides scores of specific funding directives for key
program and priorities in full-year funding bills and the accompanying explanatory
statements, under this full-year CR, hundreds of those congressional directives fall away.

➢ This creates slush funds for the Trump administration to reshape spending priorities,
eliminate longstanding programs, pick winners and losers, and more.

➢ Failing to provide specific funding directives from Congress means the Trump
administration has fewer legal constraints on what it can do.

➢ House Republicans could have addressed this glaring problem—but chose not to. Their
yearlong CR includes plenty of unnecessary anomalies but doesn’t address this
fundamental issue because they prefer slush funds for this administration to cut the
programs it wants in order to fund Trump’s priorities instead.

Myriad member priorities are at risk of significant reductions in funding or elimination
under the full-year CR. CDS projects are also not funded in the CR.

➢ Under this CR, the Trump administration could—for example—decide not to spend
funding previously allocated for combatting fentanyl, the SUPPORT Act and other
substance abuse and mental health programs, or specific NIH priorities like Alzheimer’s
disease and vaccine research—and instead steer funding to other priorities of its
choosing. It could also pick and choose which Military Construction, Army Corps, or
transit improvement and expansion projects to fund without direction from Congress—
leaving Democratic states and priorities in the lurch.

➢ This is particularly risky for Democratic cities and states that may have to beg for their
priorities to be funded from an administration that has already cut off vast swaths of
funding and threatened retaliation if jurisdictions do not abide the administration’s
threats.

This is not a “clean” CR. Far from it, the CR includes a bevy of anomalies to provide
additional funding or flexibility for some priorities while shortchanging most others.