House Passes GOP Budget Despite Mid-Day RevoltHere is the full bill: Congressional budget 2025DownloadBelow is an AIM analysis of the House Budget Bill for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res., 118th Congress, 2nd Session), focusing on identifying potential pork spending, anomalies, carve-outs for special interests, or irregular regulations and language. This analysis is based on a review of the document’s budgetary allocations, enforcement mechanisms, reserve funds, and policy statements.Overview of the BillThe FY2025 budget resolution establishes recommended budgetary levels for federal revenues, new budget authority, outlays, deficits, and debt from FY2025 through FY2034. It includes 20 major functional categories of spending (e.g., National Defense, Health, Transportation) and introduces budget enforcement rules, reserve funds, and policy statements that guide future legislative actions. Pork spending refers to funds allocated to benefit specific constituents or interests, often seen as wasteful or unnecessary, while anomalies are deviations from standard budgetary practices.The bill establishes the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.Identified Anomalies in Budgetary FiguresTwo notable anomalies appear in the numerical allocations within the major functional categories (Section 102):Social Security (Function 650) Anomaly in FY2030Details: For FY2030, the new budget authority is listed as $2,440,000,000, while outlays are $92,440,000,000—a discrepancy of $90 billion. In contrast, FY2029 shows $87,480,000,000 for both, and FY2031 shows $97,117,000,000 for both, suggesting a consistent annual increase.Analysis: This appears to be a typographical or clerical error. The new budget authority for FY2030 likely should be $92,440,000,000 to align with outlays and the trend from prior and subsequent years. Such a drastic drop in budget authority without explanation is inconsistent with typical budgeting for Social Security, an entitlement program with predictable growth tied to demographics.Implication: If uncorrected, this could misrepresent funding levels, potentially affecting enforcement or future appropriations..General Government (Function 800) Negative Budget Authority in FY2025Details: For FY2025, new budget authority is listed as -$50,120,000,000, while outlays are $25,676,000,000. In FY2026, it shifts to $26,116,000,000 in new budget authority, with outlays at $32,621,000,000, and remains positive thereafter.Analysis: Negative budget authority is unusual for a category covering legislative, executive, and government-wide functions. It may reflect offsetting receipts (e.g., fees or revenues credited against spending) or a one-time adjustment. However, the lack of an explanatory note in the resolution makes this an anomaly compared to standard budgeting, where categories typically show positive allocations.Implication: This could obscure actual spending intentions or reflect an accounting maneuver, warranting clarification to ensure transparency.Potential Pork Spending and Special Interest Carve-OutsSince this is a budget resolution setting overall levels rather than an appropriations bill specifying individual projects, explicit earmarks are absent. However, certain provisions and categories suggest opportunities for pork or favor specific interests:Transportation (Function 400)FY2025 Levels: $166,053,000,000 in new budget authority; $138,488,000,000 in outlays.Analysis: Transportation is a frequent target for pork due to its project-based nature (e.g., highways, bridges). While the resolution doesn’t list specific projects, the high allocation—exceeding many other discretionary categories—could enable future appropriations to fund localized or politically motivated projects. Section 207 limits transfers from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund, counting them as new budget authority and outlays, which aims to prevent gimmicks but doesn’t preclude targeted spending within the category.Potential Concern: Without detailed breakdowns, this category’s size raises the possibility of pork in subsequent appropriations bills..Allowances (Function 920)FY2025 Levels: $100,210,000,000 in new budget authority; $66,930,000,000 in outlays.Analysis: Allowances serve as placeholders for unspecified or future needs, often a vehicle for discretionary spending that could include pork. The significant allocation without specific justification suggests flexibility for later designation, potentially for special interest projects.Potential Concern: The lack of transparency in this category could allow funds to be directed to politically favored initiatives..Reserve Funds (Title III)Details: Four reserve funds allow the Budget Committee chair to adjust allocations without increasing the deficit or under specific conditions:Section 301: Deficit-neutral fund for national infrastructure investments.Section 302: Fund for pro-growth tax policies (e.g., tax code amendments).Section 303: Deficit-neutral fund for medical innovation.Section 304: Fund for trade agreements (e.g., tariff modifications).Analysis: These funds provide flexibility to support specific sectors (e.g., infrastructure contractors, tax-advantaged industries, pharmaceutical companies, trade-related businesses) without immediate fiscal scrutiny. While deficit-neutral requirements limit overall cost, the adjustments could prioritize special interests over broader needs.Potential Concern: The discretionary power of the Budget chair could channel funds to politically connected groups, resembling carve-outs..Policy Statements (Title IV) Favoring Specific InterestsAgriculture (Section 413):Policy: Strengthen the Farm Safety Net, reduce ad hoc disaster spending, and reinvest savings into farm programs.Analysis: Notes that over 70% of agriculture spending since 2018 has been unbudgeted assistance, suggesting inefficiencies. The push to redirect funds could benefit specific agricultural regions or commodities (e.g., large-scale farmers), potentially at the expense of broader fiscal discipline.Potential Concern: This may favor agricultural lobbies over other sectors.Medical Innovation (Section 408):Policy: Encourage investment and competition in biomedical research, rejecting price controls.Analysis: This could benefit pharmaceutical and biotech industries by protecting profits, potentially prioritizing corporate interests over patient cost relief.Potential Concern: A carve-out for a high-profit sector under the guise of innovation.Border Security (Section 411):Policy: Implement H.R. 2 (Secure the Border Act of 2023) with significant DHS funding.Analysis: Emphasizes border enforcement, potentially benefiting contractors (e.g., wall construction firms) and regions near the Southwest border.Potential Concern: Targeted spending that may prioritize political agendas over comprehensive immigration policy.Irregular Regulations and LanguageSeveral enforcement mechanisms and policy statements introduce unusual or potentially problematic provisions:Limitation on Advance Appropriations (Section 203)Details: Prohibits advance appropriations except for accounts identified in the report or joint explanatory statement (e.g., $28,852,000,000 for general accounts, unspecified amounts for veterans and Indian health in FY2026).Analysis: While aimed at fiscal control, the exceptions allow selective pre-funding, potentially for special interest programs, without full transparency until the accompanying report is released.Concern: Could enable backdoor carve-outs not visible in the resolution itself..Adjustments for Improved Control (Section 206)Details: Allows the Budget chair to shift direct spending reductions to discretionary appropriations for the same purpose.Analysis: This mechanism could reallocate mandatory savings (e.g., entitlements) to discretionary projects, potentially favoring specific constituencies over systemic reform.Concern: An irregular shift that might obscure spending priorities..Policy Statement LanguageDeregulation (Section 415):Details: Advocates repealing Biden-era regulations and enacting laws like the REINS Act to limit executive rulemaking.Analysis: The aggressive push against regulations, including specific legislative references, is unusually prescriptive for a budget resolution, favoring business interests over balanced governance.Concern: Could be seen as irregular for prioritizing ideology over fiscal focus..Medicaid Work Requirements (Section 409):Details: Proposes requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to work 80 hours monthly for benefits.Analysis: This policy, tied to the Limit, Save, Grow Act, introduces a significant regulatory shift within a budget document, potentially reducing access rather than adjusting funding.Concern: Unusual for a budget resolution to dictate program eligibility rules.ConclusionThe FY2025 House Budget Resolution does not contain explicit pork spending or earmarks, as it sets broad levels rather than specific projects. However, potential areas of concern include:Anomalies: A likely typo in Social Security (FY2030) and negative budget authority in General Government (FY2025) suggest errors or opaque accounting needing clarification.Pork and Special Interests: High allocations in Transportation and Allowances, plus reserve funds and policy statements (e.g., agriculture, medical innovation, border security), could facilitate targeted spending in future legislation, benefiting specific sectors or regions.Irregular Provisions: Enforcement mechanisms (e.g., advance appropriation exceptions, spending shifts) and prescriptive policy language (e.g., deregulation, Medicaid rules) deviate from typical budget resolution norms, potentially favoring political or special interests.To confirm pork or carve-outs, subsequent appropriations bills aligning with these levels must be scrutinized. For now, the resolution’s framework raises flags but lacks definitive evidence of waste or favoritism within the document itself.Then… because cats are curious creatures…we considered the full legislative text of the house and senate budget bills to predict what a final budget, after reconciliation would look like after considering the history of prior reconciliations:Note: These are our reflections, which could change as the bill makes its way to the Senate and the President. We would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Likely Features of the Final Reconciliation BillGiven the current resolutions, Republican control, and reconciliation’s procedural constraints, the final bill will likely consolidate key priorities into a single, comprehensive package. Here’s a breakdown:1. Tax Cuts (Approximately $4 Trillion Over 10 Years) • Details: The bill will likely extend most TCJA provisions expiring in 2025, including individual and business tax cuts. The House’s $4.5 trillion allocation sets the upper bound, but negotiations may trim this slightly to $4 trillion. • Rationale: Tax cuts are a cornerstone of Republican policy, backed by President Trump’s support for the House’s comprehensive approach and historical precedent (e.g., 2017 TCJA).2. Border Security and Defense Spending (Around $300 Billion) • Details: Expect $200–$342 billion over several years for border security (e.g., wall funding, enforcement technology) and military enhancements. The Senate’s $342 billion over four years and the House’s $200 billion will likely converge around $300 billion. • Rationale: Both chambers prioritize these areas, reflecting GOP voter priorities and campaign promises, with flexibility to adjust the exact amount.3. Mandatory Spending Cuts (Approximately $1 Trillion Over 10 Years) • Details: The bill will likely cut $1 trillion from mandatory programs, with a significant portion ($880 billion) from the Energy and Commerce Committee, targeting Medicaid through reduced federal funding or eligibility changes. The Senate’s $11.5 trillion claim seems unrealistic, so the House’s $1.502 trillion provides a more grounded ceiling, negotiable downward due to potential resistance. • Rationale: Cuts offset tax and spending increases, aligning with fiscal conservative rhetoric, though entitlement reductions (especially Medicaid) may spark debate even among Republicans.4. Debt Ceiling Increase ($4 Trillion) • Details: A $4 trillion increase, as instructed by the House, will be included to accommodate borrowing needs from tax cuts and spending. • Rationale: Essential to avoid a debt ceiling crisis, and reconciliation’s debt limit authority makes this straightforward.5. Energy Policy Reforms • Details: Limited to fiscal measures (e.g., tax credits, subsidies for fossil fuels), favoring energy independence as emphasized by the Senate. • Rationale: While both resolutions prioritize energy, the Byrd Rule restricts non-budgetary reforms, so only revenue-affecting provisions will qualify.ConclusionThe likely final budget reconciliation bill for FY2025 will be a comprehensive package reflecting Republican priorities: • Tax Cuts: ~$4 trillion over 10 years, extending TCJA provisions. • Spending: ~$300 billion for border security and defense. • Cuts: ~$1 trillion from mandatory programs, heavily targeting Medicaid. • Debt Ceiling: $4 trillion increase. • Energy: Fiscal incentives for fossil fuels.This bill will leverage reconciliation’s simple-majority power, pass both chambers, and be signed into law by President Trump, balancing GOP goals with procedural limits while likely increasing the deficit despite offset claims. Adjustments may occur in negotiations, but the core elements align with the resolutions and past reconciliation successes.