Overview
Title
To provide for across-the-board rescissions of nonsecurity discretionary spending of 2 percent.
ELI5 AI
The bill is like a big rule that tries to help save money by making sure the government spends a little less money on things that are not about keeping the country safe, cutting 2 pennies for every dollar they use in certain areas each year. It also asks an important office to tell some government helpers how and where they are going to cut this money.
Summary AI
S. 5485 is a bill introduced in the Senate that aims to cut 2 percent of the United States' nonsecurity discretionary spending each year. Nonsecurity discretionary spending refers to funds allocated by the government for projects and activities that are not related to national security. The bill ensures that these cuts are made evenly across all applicable budget areas starting from the fiscal year 2026. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget must report these budget cuts to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, identified as S. 5485, aims to enforce a 2 percent reduction in nonsecurity discretionary funding across various federal programs starting in fiscal year 2026. This would mean a consistent annual trim from certain parts of the federal budget, specifically those that are not directly tied to national security. The bill mandates that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report the details of these cuts to Congress.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several concerns that may complicate its implementation and impact. Firstly, the definition of "nonsecurity discretionary appropriations" is broad and lacks specificity, which could create uncertainty about which programs are subject to cuts. Secondly, the process for determining how these cuts would be proportional, or "pro rata," is not defined, possibly leading to inconsistent application. Additionally, the choice of a 2 percent reduction appears arbitrary, without clear justification provided, which might question the careful analysis behind this decision. Lastly, the legislation does not offer any criteria for exemptions, risking unintended damage to essential programs by treating all nonsecurity funding equally. The OMB's 30-day reporting period post-funding approval could delay planning and execution of affected programs, potentially complicating financial management strategies.
Impact on the Public
The public might experience diverse impacts from this legislation. On a broad scale, such cuts could potentially streamline government expenditures and contribute to deficit reduction efforts. However, because nonsecurity discretionary funding covers a wide range of services—from education to transportation and beyond—there may be noticeable reductions in services that directly impact daily life. For example, any reduction in funding for education programs or infrastructure projects could lead to long-term consequences for societal growth and stability.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders could see both positive and negative outcomes. Policymakers striving for fiscal conservatism might view this bill as a step toward prudent financial management by enforcing restraints on government spending. However, various federal departments and agencies that rely on nonsecurity discretionary funding may struggle with these mandatory cuts, facing challenges in delivering services effectively. Some public sector employees might witness job security issues as programs scale back. Conversely, taxpayers might appreciate efforts to cut excessive spending if it is perceived as contributing to financial responsibility and sustainability. Nonetheless, those relying on federal support for education, health, and community development could argue that the bill unfairly threatens critical societal services without thorough examination of real-world impacts.
Issues
The definition of 'nonsecurity discretionary appropriations' in Section 1 may lead to ambiguity due to the lack of specific references to programs or projects, which could create confusion about which appropriations are subject to rescission.
Section 1 lacks detail on the method for calculating 'pro rata' rescissions, potentially leading to confusion or inconsistency in its application, affecting departments and programs differently.
The bill does not provide a clear rationale for selecting a specific 2 percent rescission rate in Section 1, which could be perceived as arbitrary or insufficiently justified.
The absence of criteria or a framework for exemptions from rescissions in Section 1 might result in disproportionate impacts on certain programs and unintended consequences, affecting public services.
The timeline for OMB reporting in Section 1 could lead to delays in financial planning and program management, as it allows up to 30 days after appropriations are available, potentially affecting the execution of federal programs.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Across-the-board rescissions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, several key terms related to federal budget processes are defined, including "budget authority," "discretionary appropriations," and "regular appropriation Act." It also outlines a rule that starting in fiscal year 2026, 2 percent of nonsecurity discretionary funding will be cut each year, and requires the Office of Management and Budget to report these cuts to Congress.