Republicans on Capitol Hill have begun discussing with the White House a supplemental funding bill for the conflict in Iran, and even fiscal hawks seem to be on board.
Fiscal hawks in Washington are known to be rabble-rousers when it comes to demanding offsets for spending in an effort to decrease the more than $38 trillion national debt. Yet, their concern about spending when it comes to supplemental funding for Iran seems slim.
“No,” Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) told the Washington Examiner when asked if he would like to see spending offsets. “It’s war.”
“Let’s face it: We’re in 30% deficit spending,” he continued. “This is small fries, and this is world-changing. It is what it is.”
While the White House and lawmakers are still figuring out a price tag for the bill, some fiscal hawks will try to find offsets, but they expressed that they would ultimately support the proposal.
“I’ll support it, but I’ll try and insist that we pay for it,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told the Washington Examiner.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who leads the House oversight government efficiency subcommittee, told the Washington Examiner there might not be sufficient time to find the spending cuts needed, given that the Iran war is moving quickly.
“I’d like to see those if it was possible, but I don’t know the reality we can get that done in time,” Burchett said.
Even Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who wears a pin that shows the national debt racking up, told the Washington Examiner he is a “lean yes” on a supplemental funding bill and that he would not focus on offsets.
Republicans have been pushing the idea of a second budget process called reconciliation to bypass the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold to provide additional funding for the conflict. The party-line maneuver might be necessary given Democratic opposition to the war.
But the conflict in Iran has prompted questions over whether the budgetary tool would be used to fund military operations.
“As you know, I’m very insistent upon a reconciliation package, and we’re trying to find the final provisions of it everybody can agree to,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told reporters Monday. “I think defense spending could be a part of that, but we have to wait. You know the details are coming together.”
Despite the idea being floated on Capitol Hill, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said the Trump administration has “got what we need” to fund the war.
“I think right now we’ve got what we need, whether we have to go back to Congress for more is something that I think that Russ Vought and OMB will look into, but the latest number, you said $11.3 [billion], the latest number I was briefed on was $12 [billion], and so it’s consistent,” Hassett said on CBS News’s Face the Nation over the weekend.
Hassett also revealed that the U.S. government spent $12 billion on the Iran war after just over two weeks of fighting.
Even with the support of fiscal hawks, any supplemental funding for Iran coming from Congress has an uphill battle. Johnson maintains the slimmest of majorities in the House, and Democrats have already poured cold water on the idea.
“You’ve got the administration without any plan, any objective, any exit strategy, has gotten us into this reckless war of choice in the Middle East, so the notion that they would come up here and ask for additional money is beyond the pale at this moment, start by explaining why we’re in this to begin with, because they failed in that regard,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said at a press conference Monday.
JOHNSON PUSHES RECONCILIATION 2.0 WITH NO CLEAR PLAN AND TRUMP’S FOCUS ELSEWHERE
His deputy echoed a similar sentiment.
“The frustration House Democrats have is that there is no plan or strategy, the administration enabled by House Republicans are just going day to day,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-CA) said at a press conference Tuesday.
David Sivak contributed to this article.