Can Congress avoid another omnibus fiasco? Yes, cut a bigger budget deal now.

GOP budget writers found a way around spending caps when it came to national defense. Now it's time to come to terms over the rest of government spending.

Evan Vucci/AP/File
In this Sept. 9, 2014 file photo, President Obama meets with then-Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky (l.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Recently, the president worked closely with McConnell, now majority leader, to pass trade promotion authority. He also worked with Boehner to update the Patriot Act in the House. But so far, he is not involved in negotiations over spending for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

President Obama worked closely with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to pass trade promotion authority, also known as fast track, before the Memorial Day recess in the Senate.

And he worked closely with Speaker John Boehner to pass a sharply limited update to the Patriot Act in the House.

Can this bipartisan cooperation continue into the summer? More specifically, can the White House and Congress come to some agreement on how to keep the government funded when the fiscal year ends in October?

Both Messrs. Boehner and McConnell have pledged regular order when it comes to the routine spending bills that make up the bulk of Congress’s constitutional duties. And the appropriations committees have been hard at work, holding hearings, marking up bills, and even bringing a few bills to the floor.

Unfortunately, the president has pledged to not cooperate when it comes to this most basic of congressional functions. He believes that the budget agreement passed by Congress doesn’t spend enough money. (Budget resolutions are used to set overall spending levels for appropriations bills that Congress sends to the White House.)

Certainly, that sentiment is shared by Republicans when it comes to defense spending. The GOP budget writers found a way to get around the spending caps when it came to national-security funding.

Policymakers have a choice. They can waste the summer, marking up bills that aren’t going to go anywhere, making their colleagues walk the plank on tough votes, and then wait for the inevitable crisis before they cut the deal. Or, they can cooperate now to find agreement on a bigger budget deal that will smooth the way to regular order for the dozen spending bills that Congress is required to pass.

Conservatives dislike the big omnibus spending bills that Congress usually produces at the end of the year, bills that nobody has time to read and are chock-full of all kinds of goodies that escape notice until well after the final votes are cast.

There’s really only one way to avoid the omnibus. Front-load the negotiations on the budget. Make this a summer of production, not a summer of futility.

John Feehery publishes his Feehery Theory blog at http://www.thefeeherytheory.com/.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.