Liberty Exposé: Grand Ole Grab Bag
Nothing tests your wallet (or your willpower) quite like shopping on an empty stomach. Short grocery lists and get-out-quick mindsets offer little resistance once the rumblings start. Suddenly, everything looks good. Aisle by aisle, necessary items are joined by tantalizing temptations, and by the time the cashier announces the total, you realize the majority of the cart is overflowing with costly cravings. Like everyone else, Washington shops the same way. Except Congress is swiping the American taxpayer’s credit card at the register.
Recently, House Republicans approved a budget resolution laying the framework for a reconciliation package that could potentially add a staggering $95 billion to the federal deficit. Rather than limiting the scope of their shopping list, the proposal sends lawmakers browsing through three separate aisles of government, ready to checkout with three arguably unrelated items: defense and intelligence funding amidst the ongoing conflict with Iran, financial relief for America’s struggling farmers, and federal resources intended to advance proof-of-citizenship and voter-identification requirements associated with the SAVE America Act.
Taken out of the federal shopping cart and examined on their own, each item is labeled with clear conservative justification. No responsible Republican would argue that American troops should deploy without adequate resources, that American farmers should confront rising costs and economic instability on their own, or that public confidence in federal elections is something that should be taken for granted. Each priority possesses enough merit to stand and be advocated for separately. So why are they being purchased together and collectively charged to the national credit card?
What’s In The Bag?
In a contentious vote of 216-214, and completely lacking bipartisan support, House Republicans advanced a fiscal year 2027 budget plan that delivers reconciliation instructions to four House committees. Those instructions direct the House Administration, Agriculture, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees to commence work on drafting separate portions of an overarching reconciliation bill. Reconciliation serves as a legislative fast lane, allowing for the accelerated advancement of certain debt limit, tax, and spending legislation. Considered a top priority, a reconciliation bill can completely bypass a filibuster and provides legislators an opportunity to pass the bill with a simple majority vote.
For Republicans, such a reconciliation bill provides an avenue around the seven Democratic votes they would otherwise need to overcome a likely Senate filibuster. But tickets have yet to be issued for reconciliation’s express lane, nor has $95 billion been spent. The Senate must first adopt the passed budget resolution, or return an amended version subsequently agreed upon by the House, before any reconciliation instructions can formally take effect. The designated House Committees would then submit their respective recommendations to the House Budget Committee, where the individual measures are packaged into a single reconciliation bill for consideration by the full chamber. Even in the pay-per-lane, legislation has a long journey before it ever reaches the president’s desk.
Nevertheless, the approved House framework reveals what Republicans intend to place in the reconciliation shopping cart, and how much each item costs. Of the $95 billion authorized by the blueprint, the lion’s share is reserved for national security, with the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees directed to “write legislation that increases spending by up to $60 billion and $13 billion, respectively.” Together, the committee’s potential directives could amount to an additional $73 billion over the next decade. Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), chairman of the Budget Committee, referred to the passed plan as “Just bullets and bombs to finish the job”, and it’d be foolish to deny the influence the war with Iran has exerted over the proposed spending. Advocates argue the funding is necessary to sustain military operations, replenish weapons and equipment, support intelligence operations, and ensure American readiness abroad.
Up to $12 billion may be added to the federal deficit by future provisions drafted by the Agriculture Committee. The funding aims to combat financial hardships, as American farmers face rising fuel and fertilizer prices, trade disruption, and other economic pressures from tariffs and instability surrounding the Iran war. The American Farm Bureau Federation lauded the potential reconciliation benefits, while the National Farmers Union (NFU) embraced the affair with a healthy degree of skepticism. In a letter obtained by DTN/Progressive Farmers, the NFU asserts “We are troubled by funding that perpetuates a costly military conflict”, and that “"Farmers should not have to bear the financial consequences of policies that further erode their bottom lines,”. A coalition of former agricultural powerhouses doesn’t believe the $12 billion goes far enough, affirming in a letter to congressional agricultural committees that Congress must “reverse the decline and restore our nation’s agricultural economy.”
The remaining $10 billion is relegated to the House Administration Committee for election-related measures derived from the SAVE America Act. Although not directly voting on President Trump’s voting-integrity imitative, the broader proposal incentivizes states through grant funding to adopt provisions pertaining to SAVE, such as documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and ID verification when casting a federal ballot. Republicans affirm these requirements would strengthen election integrity and restore public confidence, and Trump is keen as ever to see SAVE become a reality.
These electoral provisions might be the future reconciliation package’s greatest hurdle, and overcoming the odds seems unlikely. Funding states to implement new SAVE-related requirements carries an upfront cost, but proof of citizenship and voter-identification mandates are matters of election policy. Under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, senators are prevented from including elements in reconciliation bills that are considered ‘extraneous’. In other words, measures or provisions that are without direct budgetary effect, or whose effects on revenue and federal spending are merely tacked on incidentally, can be challenged by an opposing senator and struck from the greater reconciliation package. If the requirements pertaining to SAVE are found to be ‘extraneous’, Senate Republicans would need 60 votes to maintain them, leaving the GOP holding the bag and facing the same seven-vote deficit they attempted to avoid via the reconciliation bill.
Fiscal Conservatism (Sold Separately)
But Republicans might not be finished shopping, and the Grand Ole Grab Bag still has room for another purchase. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has touted the idea of holding the House-approved budget blueprint in reserve to leverage against a potential government shutdown come September. Thune views Senate approval as unlikely, and despite pressure from Trump and other Republicans, it’s doubtful the Senate will give their stamp of approval prior to the August recess.
Republicans used to be the loudest voices to decry such an omnibus-esque style of governance. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) dismissed the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act as a “partisan grab bag”, while Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) lamented that the Democrat’s use of the reconciliation bill is “designed not to encourage bipartisanship” and “not to get bipartisan buy-in.” In 2025, House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) accused Democrats of attempting to “hijack a simple extension with a partisan grab bag of unrelated provisions” instead of focusing solely on the short-term government funding.
Republicans rightly criticized such actions in the past, but are they right to engage in such hypnotical behavior when it’s their turn to push the shopping cart? Reconciliation and omnibus appropriations aren’t one in the same, but each fosters the same objectionable behavior: lumping distinct priorities together, limiting individual accountability, and forcing legislators to accept or reject the entire cart at once. One senator might be a staunch supporter of agricultural aid while standing firmly against further spending towards the Iran conflict. Another might favor election-integrity requirements but question whether such legislation belongs in the budgetary fast lane. Packaging each priority together shields the weaker provisions and denies American taxpayers a clear accounting of what they’re paying into.
Lack of transparency is troubling enough, especially when there are no proposed offsets to cover a possible $95 billion price tag. Republicans aren’t taking items they can’t afford (or don’t need) out of the cart, or bargain shopping between aisles, let alone explaining how the final bill will be paid. Instead, they’re preparing to purchase the entire package with the national credit card, leaving future American taxpayers to settle the balance. Such a shopping spree has a price beyond its retail value, as yet another party-line package may cause at-risk incumbents to cast politically damaging votes ahead of the midterm elections.
Fiscal conservatism is more than just buying into whatever legislation is labeled with the conservative brand. It demands financial restraint, transparency, and the discipline to distinguish national necessities from politically convenient additions. Defense readiness, agricultural stability, and election integrity are pragmatic concerns, and if Republicans wish to stand behind them, they should muster the courage to defend, debate, and finance each priority separately. If they can’t, then there’s little difference between a GOP or Democratic grab bag. Either way, the receipt is still handed to the American people.
