Categorized | Opinion

Rand Paul Out in Front: No More Omnibus. No More Continuing Resolutions.

Rand Paul has called for an end to Omnibus Bills and lengthy Continuing Resolutions as a practical solution to dealing with the President’s signature Health Care Legislation (i.e. the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the American People). Rand Paul offers this solution at minute 2:40.


I have written Congressmen Wittman requesting that he offer no more Yea votes for Omnibus Bills or lengthy Continuing Resolutions.

Why is this so important?

The Republican Leadership continues to tell the American People that they will not shut down the government and default on the national debt. There are so many problems with this deceitful spin. First, the national debt is the one thing that the Federal Government is constitutionally required to pay before all other obligations. Second, the only reason that the government would shut down (the only reason 17% of the government would shut down) is because of the way in which they choose to package these appropriations.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have twelve subcommittees on appropriations. Each subcommittee is to pass appropriations for their committee to be debated and voted on. Once passed in the House and Senate the separate but equal pieces of legislation go to conference where they are compromised into a bill that will be sent to the President of the United States. If any of the twelve subcommittees fail to successfully offer an appropriations bill by the budget deadline, Continuing Resolutions are used as a tool to extend debate until a compromise is reached. Continuing Resolutions were never intended to be applied to the entirety of the federal budget.

These Omnibus Bills, which include all twelve appropriations bills from the twelve different subcommittees, make it impossible for our legislators to vote responsibly and it makes any vote they do make easy to demagogue. So, Congressman Wittman feels that he cannot keep voting against Omnibus Bills that include defense appropriations and farm subsidies for his constituents in the First District, so he is forced to also vote to fund ObamaCare, executive amnesty, and a slew of spending increases that he might not actually support.

The debate over ObamaCare should be kept to only one of the twelve appropriation subcommittees. If that committee cannot find a way to pass an appropriation than that part of the government, not the entire government, can be shut down after a short Continuing Resolution fails to successfully produce majority support for a compromised bill.

Every Republican that has voted for one of these endless CR’s and lump sum Omnibus Bills has voted to fund Obamacare, increase the national debt, increase spending, increase taxes, on a variety of issues and areas – but when we challenge them on this, they say, “I had to vote for that Bill because I didn’t want to shut down the government and default on the national debt”.

Every Republican that answers this way looks at you with the same cynical contempt that President Obama and Governor Romney’s health care strategist, Johnathon Gruber, looks at you.

Call your representatives. Tell them No More Omnibus Bills. No More CR’s.

About Steven Brodie Tucker

Graduated with a degree in Philosophy from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Also studied economics and political science at George Mason.

3 Responses to “Rand Paul Out in Front: No More Omnibus. No More Continuing Resolutions.”

  1. Anonymous says:

    House Republicans begin lining up behind defending Obama’s Amnesty but Republican Leadership NOT yet on board:

  2. Robert Shannon

    If you have a computer then watch Mark Levin’s chronicled look back at the 18 times government has been shut down, going back to the Ford Administration and continuing all the way through last years shutdown of the federal government.

    In none of those shutdowns did the federal government default on it’s debt, it is a bogus and cowardly argument advanced for pure political theatre , nothing else. It has no basis in fact, history or actual functioning of government. It’s only intent is political, a tool meant to obscure political cowardice instead of it’s valuable use when Congress and the President can’t agree on a spending priority.

    Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills were not created out of thin air. They came about for a variety of reasons beside the often publically stated one, namely to “keep government going” The truth is often times it provides cover for members of Congress who want a cloak to hide behind as Steve articulates in his article this morning on a particular spending item that they ( members of Congress ) would just as soon avoid having to vote on , up or down , separately. It is a way of hiding their support for , or against a particularly unpopular expansion of government , or an increase in spending on a existing or new agency. Obfuscate –that is more often than not the real purpose of this type of spending authority.

    Since this weekend we have the VTPP Federation Conference , and a headline speaker is the newly sworn in Congressman Brat–may I propose someone attending ask the Congressman this one question.

    Will he refuse to vote for a spending authorization beyond the end of the year ?

    It is being promoted that extending spending authorization to next September prohibits the new Congress in January from returning to the normal appropriations process that Steve describes above, the sane and preferred manner that hasn’t existed for a decade.

    Much will be learned from what Congressman Brats answer to that simple question is. I would ask it myself, but will not be in attendance.

    Bob Shannon

  3. Gene Lefty says:

    Here are some important questions for Rep. Brat;

    1) When does he intend to have a “well crafted response” to Chuck Todd’s question about minimum wages?

    2) Corporate health care plans that are EXEMPT from the ACA incurred a 16% increase for next year? Is that acceptable in his eyes? If not, when will he have a suitable remedy for these massive annual increases in the cost of health that have gone on for over the last twenty years?

    3) How many disabled veterans, or veterans, did he put on his staff? How many disabled veterans, or veterans did he interview? Did he reach out and encourage veterans to apply? Does he have a problem with hiring veterans? Will being a former lobbyist be the most important factor for employment on his staff?

    I will not hold my breath waiting for any answers to these questions.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!