Mike Lee Profile picture
Sep 15, 2023 • 36 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X
🧵1.The law firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, & Jeffries (“The Firm”) has learned that members of Congress (and voters) don’t like “omnibus” spending bills—that is, legislative proposals that fund all of the functions of the federal government in a single, consolidated bill.
2.This presents a challenge for The Firm, which has for years used omnibus spending bills to manipulate the legislative process. Before we address The Firm’s latest challenge and how it’s responding, let’s first review a few of the basic dynamics at play here.
3. An omnibus spending bill is typically written by The Firm in secret, with assistance from a few “appropriators” (members of the House and Senate spending or “appropriations” committees), hand-picked by The Firm.
4.Once written, an omnibus will first be seen by the public—and even by nearly every member of Congress—only days or hours before a scheduled shutdown.
5. The timing and sequence of a typical omnibus, carefully orchestrated by The Firm, all but ensures that it will pass without substantive changes once it becomes public, and that very few elected, federal lawmakers will have meaningful input in this highly secretive process.
6. At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy.
7. Sometimes that appearance is enhanced by The Firm deciding to let members vote on a small handful of amendments, but The Firm persuades enough members into opposing amendments that make substantial changes to the original, sacred text drafted by The Firm.
8. What’s stunning here is that loyalties within The Firm seem to run deeper than those within each party. In light of that phenomenon, some observers have described the force uniting support for The Firm’s omnibus bills as “the Uniparty.” While members of both parties are adversely affected by The Firm’s manipulative tactics, there is far more resentment toward The Firm among Republicans, who see two constants in The Firm’s impact: (1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats. While exceptions can occasionally be found, Republican appropriators are notorious for wanting to spend—far more than they want to advance Republican policy priorities, deeply endearing them to The Firm.
9. Sure, all members of Congress get to vote on the bill’s ultimate passage. But passage is all but assured. The Firm tells members that they MUST pass it—even though they haven’t seen it, read it, or had time to debate or amend it—because if they don’t, there will be a government shutdown.
10. The Firm also makes clear that members voting against the omnibus will be blamed—by The Firm itself—for the shutdown and its ugly consequences.
11. Thus, although voters in every state elect people to Congress to represent them in all federal legislative endeavors, The Firm can (and often does) render their individual involvement in the spending process far less meaningful than it should be.
12. This sort of thing makes The Firm far more powerful, with more power flowing to The Firm every time this cycle is completed. It’s great for The Firm and the lobbyists and special interests able to capture The Firm’s attention (through home-state connections, political donations, or otherwise).
13. But it’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt.
L
14. In a sense, the problem is not necessarily the omnibus itself. In theory, Congress could pass a comprehensive spending bill in a way that didn’t exclude most of its members—and most Americans—from the process of drafting, debating, amending, and passing that bill.
15. Thus, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the omnibus itself; the true evil lies in the process by which the omnibus is secretly drafted, hastily debated, and then passed under extortion from The Firm.
16. Many Americans have, over time, developed a basic understanding of omnibus spending bills—at least enough to be suspicious of them. Having heard enough complaints from their constituents, many members of Congress have understandably begun expressing reluctance toward any omnibus.
17. The Firm has become aware of that growing reluctance, which is a serious threat to The Firm, given how well the omnibus has served The Firm as it perpetually tries to make itself more powerful at the expense of the American people.
18. Clearly alarmed by that threat, some members of The Firm have started to say things like “we will not support omnibus.”
19. By saying that, they make themselves sound heroic, responsive to voters and rank-and-file members, and committed to serious reform of the spending process.
20. That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus.
21. Those leery of The Firm’s manipulation tactics understand that (a) the absence of a single omnibus bill, and the use of two or more “minibus” bills instead of a single omnibus, doesn’t mean the process will be fair or materially different than that associated with an omnibus, and (b) it’s very likely that Congress will find itself stuck with a single omnibus, in spite of The Firm’s recent insistence to the contrary.
22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach is more likely to protect Republican priorities.
23. Congress is supposed to pass twelve spending bills each year, each associated with different functions of the federal government. So far this year, the House has passed only one spending bill—the one known by the abbreviation “MilConVA,” which contains funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration.
24.This week, the Senate moved to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA appropriations bill.
25. Not content to let the Senate deal with only one spending bill at a time, The Firm wanted to create a minibus out of the MilConVA bill by adding two additional bills drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee—specifically those containing funding for (1) agriculture, and (2) transportation, housing, and urban development.
26. Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate found this move alarming, as it would strengthen The Firm at the expense of Republican priorities, and contribute to the eventual likelihood of an end-of-year omnibus geared primarily toward advancing Democratic priorities.
27. The Firm faced a hurdle: combining the three bills together in the Senate would require the consent of every senator.
28. While many Senate Republicans harbored these concerns, most identified conditions that, if satisfied, would persuade them to consent. Most of the conditions involved some combination of (1) technical and procedural assurances pertaining to how the combined bill would be considered, and (2) an agreement to vote on specific proposed amendments advancing Republican priorities.
29. One Republican senator in particular, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, remained concerned that any agreement would benefit The Firm and far more than it would advance Republican priorities. On that basis, he objected.
30. The Firm wasn’t happy. Making its displeasure known, The Firm and its cheerleaders tried to blame @RonJohnsonWI for the Senate’s inability to restore what’s known as “regular order,” that is, the process by which each of the twelve appropriations bills is supposed to advance independently, and in a way that honors each member’s procedural rights by allowing an “open amendment process.”
@RonJohnsonWI 31. Here’s the irony: what The Firm was proposing was NOT “regular order.” Far from it, it was a slightly different flavor of The Firm’s tried-and-true manipulation formula.
32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an unending series of omnibus (or omnibus-like) bills that The Firm can ram through both chambers with minimal interference from rank-and-file members.
@RonJohnsonWI @SenRonJohnson 33. @SenRonJohnson deserves credit for standing on principle, and should be thanked for his dedication.
@RonJohnsonWI @SenRonJohnson 34. Together, we can fix this process, which has created so many problems for the American people. But to do that, we have to push back against The Firm.
@MeJuBrun It sounds simple — and it is.
@RonJohnsonWI @SenRonJohnson 35. If this message resonates with you, please retweet and otherwise share it with anyone who might listen, and ask your members of Congress to stand up to The Firm.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Lee

Mike Lee Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BasedMikeLee

Feb 24
17. Republicans in Congress therefore need to take a stand—holding hostage something Democrats care about by attaching the REINS Act to that thing Image
18. To that end, Republicans should attach the REINS Act to any bill to increase the debt ceiling, forcing true compromise in an area where it’s badly needed—here, restoring separation of powers through the REINS Act Image
19. The REINS Act would force a restoration of the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution, by returning the lawmaking power to the legislative branch Image
Read 9 tweets
Feb 24
🧵 1. There was a time when the federal government didn’t play such an outsized role in our daily lives

We had a limited-purpose government in place at the national level

That began to change when, on April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court lawlessly “amended” the Constitution Image
2. On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded federal authority under the (previously narrow) Commerce Clause—severely undermining federalism—in response to FDR’s extortionate threat to pack the Supreme Court Image
3. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., the Supreme Court—for the first time in history, and contrary to the text and original understanding of the Constitution—held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce encompasses purely local, intrastate, economic activity so long as it has a sufficient *effect* on commerce between the statesImage
Read 25 tweets
Feb 21
🧵 1. The Fourth Turning in 2025: Trump’s Vision as America’s Next Great Shift

In 1997, historians William Strauss and Neil Howe published *The Fourth Turning*, a provocative work arguing that history unfolds in cycles—roughly 80-to-100-year “saecula”—each divided into four generational “turnings”: High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. These phases repeat in a predictable rhythm, shaped by generational archetypes and societal moods.

The Fourth Turning, the final stage, is a winter of upheaval during which older institutions collapse and a new order rises. In 2025, with Donald Trump newly re-elected and backed by a Republican-controlled Congress, the United States may be entering this transformative phase. 

If we trace prior turnings to the American Revolution (1776), the Civil War (1861), and the constitutional culmination point of the New Deal Era (1937), Trump’s agenda—particularly his push to restore federalism and separation of powers—could catalyze the next seismic shift in American history.Image
2. The Theory of the Fourth Turning

Strauss and Howe liken a saeculum to the seasons: a High is a spring of unity and growth (post-World War II America), an Awakening is a summer of individualism and rebellion (the 1960s counterculture), an Unraveling is an autumn of cynicism and decay (the 1980s–2000s), and a Crisis is a winter of destruction and renewal. America’s past Crises—the Revolution, Civil War, and Depression-to-WWII era—were existential challenges that reshaped the nation over decades. The Revolution birthed a republic, the Civil War redefined it, and the New Deal era forged the modern federal regulatory system.

The last turn-inducing Crisis arguably began with the 1929 stock market crash, deepened through the Great Depression, reached its culmination point in 1937 when the Supreme Court loosened key constitutional restraints to unlock FDR’s New Deal ambitions,and evolved with the onset of World War II, resolving in 1945 with victory and the American Century’s dawn—a new High. 

Counting forward, some have argued that the next (current) Crisis began to emerge between 2005 and 2015, a timeline aligning with the 2008 financial collapse, rising polarization, and global instability. Now, in 2025, we’re entrenched in this winter phase, grappling with economic fragility, cultural divides, and a strained world order. Could Trump’s presidency be its fulcrum?Image
3. Trump’s 2025 Agenda as a Fourth Turning Catalyst

Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 carries a mandate for bold change. His campaign vowed to dismantle the “Deep State” (entrenched bureaucratic power), reassert American sovereignty, and reverse decades of globalization. Policies targeting border security, federal deregulation, and reduced reliance on international alliances signal a break from the post-World War II consensus—the order built during the last turning’s resolution. If Strauss and Howe are correct, a Crisis demands a reckoning with failing institutions, and Trump’s vision fits that mold.

A key pillar of his agenda could (and ideally should) directly influence this Fourth Turning: restoring the Constitution’s core “structural” protections, federalism and separation of powers, starting with the passage of the REINS Act. This legislation, long championed by conservatives, would require congressional approval for major federal regulations, curbing unelected agencies’ overreach and rebalancing power between the three branches of the federal government and the states. Such a move would echo the constitutional focus of past turnings, dismantling the centralized bureaucracy that has grown since 1937 and setting the stage for a renewed American framework.

Historical parallels abound. In 1776, the Revolution severed colonial ties to Britain, birthing a nation through war and the Constitution. In 1861, the Civil War erupted over slavery, tearing the country apart before Lincoln’s leadership restored it. By 1929, the Great Depression spurred desperate Americans to accept FDR’s New Deal, vastly expanding federal authority starting in 1937. 

Each Crisis destroyed the old order—monarchy, slavery, and strict constitutional limits—and forced a new paradigm. Trump’s 2025 vision, bolstered by measures like the REINS Act, could be this era’s wrecking ball, targeting a sclerotic, elitist order that Americans increasingly resent.Image
Read 5 tweets
Jan 30
🧵1. Senator Schiff just demanded that Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should immediately join Democrats in asking for the release of Kash Patel’s grand jury testimony transcripts
2. Chairman Grassley declined, correctly noting that this isn’t something we ordinarily do, and that we’d need to have a good reason to attempt
3. Schiff seemed to think this was such an obvious move that no one should question the wisdom behind it—and that Grassley should immediately agree to it without giving it another thought or conferring with the Committee
Read 5 tweets
Jan 27
🧵 1/ What Are Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And How Could They Be Used To Weaken Drug Cartels? 🚨 Image
2/ Letters of marque and reprisal are government-issued commissions that authorize private citizens (privateers) to perform acts that would otherwise be considered piracy, like attacking enemy ships during wartime

Privateers are rewarded with a cut of the loot they “bring home” Image
Image
Image
Image
3/ Legal Basis in the U.S.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes these commissions in Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal”

While Congress hasn’t issued one in over a century, the authority to do so still exists Image
Read 11 tweets
Jan 13
🧵1. The God-given right to bear arms is nearly as ancient as efforts to restrict it are predictable. Image
2.Efforts to restrict the right to bear arms inevitably grant government—and those whose interests align with the regime in power—a monopoly on the use of guns. Image
2.Efforts to restrict the right to bear arms inevitably grant government—and those whose interests align with the regime in power—a monopoly on the use of guns. Image
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(