Congress Reaches Top-Line Spending Deal for Fiscal Year 2024, Setting Maximum Limit at $1.59 Trillion

Washington, DC, District of Columbia United States of America
$886 billion allocated to defense and $704 billion to nondefense
Congress has reached a top-line spending deal for fiscal year 2024
The maximum spending limit for discretionary programs is $1.59 trillion
Congress Reaches Top-Line Spending Deal for Fiscal Year 2024, Setting Maximum Limit at $1.59 Trillion

Congressional leaders have reached a new top-line spending deal for fiscal year 2024, setting the maximum spending limit for discretionary programs at $1.59 trillion. The agreement includes $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in the wake of the deal, calling him a “very decent, respectful guy” despite facing blowback from right-wing colleagues.

The agreement comes as Congress faces a looming deadline of Jan. 19 to pass legislation to avoid a partial government shutdown. Some departments, including the Pentagon, have funding that goes through early February.

However, there are concerns about frozen Russian assets being used to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia and how it could impact the dollar's status or foreign central banks storing reserves in the United States.

Regarding internal revenue service (IRS) funding cuts, Yellen said she would not want to endanger IRS' ability to make improvements, especially with an annual "tax gap" of as much as $160 billion. The agreement accelerates about $20 billion in cuts to IRS funding over one year instead of two years under the June agreement.

The funds come out of an $80 billion infusion that the tax collection agency received in 2022 clean energy legislation to fund a decade worth of systems modernization, compliance and customer service investments. Yellen said she believes that what's been agreed in this deal is consistent with what is called the Fiscal Responsibility Act when the debt ceiling was raised.

The agreement also includes $160 billion for military spending and $704 billion for nonmilitary spending, which remains unchanged from before. There were no real disputes about the top-line number, according to experts.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • It's not clear if there will be any cuts to specific programs within the discretionary budget.
  • The agreement may face opposition from some members of Congress who are opposed to increased spending.

Sources

66%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Schumer praises Johnson after spending deal: ‘Decent, respectful guy’

The Hill News Site: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate-seethe-republicans-call-for-israeli-elections/ Tara Suter Wednesday, 10 January 2024 01:05
  • Unique Points
    • The topline constitutes $1.590 trillion for fiscal year 2024, including $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense.
    • House Speaker Mike Johnson has faced blowback from right-wing colleagues for the deal.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses emotional manipulation by describing Mike Johnson as a 'decent' and 'respectful guy', which could be interpreted as an attempt to sway public opinion rather than providing factual information. Secondly, the author selectively reports details that support their position while ignoring those that do not - for example, they quote Johnson praising the spending deal but do not mention any criticism he has faced from right-wing colleagues. Lastly, there is no evidence of science or health articles being presented in this article.
    • The author selectively reports details that support their position while ignoring those that do not - for example, they quote Johnson praising the spending deal but do not mention any criticism he has faced from right-wing colleagues.
    • The author uses emotional manipulation by describing Mike Johnson as a 'decent' and 'respectful guy', which could be interpreted as an attempt to sway public opinion rather than providing factual information.
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when Chuck Schumer praises Mike Johnson as a decent and respectful guy. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the House Freedom Caucus's statement about the deal as a 'total failure'. Additionally, there is no evidence of any formal or informal fallacies in this article.
    • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)
    • The topline constitutes $1.590 trillion for fiscal 2024 the statutory levels of the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
    • Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote Monday on X.
  • Bias (85%)
    The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who disagree with the House Speaker's actions. The use of words like 'macho', 'bullying', and 'threatening' are used to describe people who have a different political stance than Mike Johnson. This is an example of ideological bias.
    • He’s not like that,”
      • “So much for the power of the purse!”
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        Tara Suter has a conflict of interest on the topic of Chuck Schumer as she is an employee of The Hill which is owned by News Corporation. This could compromise her ability to report objectively and impartially.
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          Tara Suter has a conflict of interest on the topics Chuck Schumer and Mike Johnson as she praises them in her article.

          71%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans want another extension to dodge a government shutdown. Here's why.

          USA Today Tuesday, 09 January 2024 00:00
          • Unique Points
            • Senate Republicans want to extend current government funding levels into March in order to avoid a shutdown and negotiate spending bills.
            • The proposal from Senate Republicans is likely to put them at odds with their colleagues in the House.
            • If Congress doesn't meet the deadlines, officials and federal agencies not deemed 'essential' will have to stop their work. Thousands of federal employees would be furloughed, and it could hit nutrition benefits and other programs Americans rely on even if they don't work for the federal government.
            • If lawmakers approve another continuing resolution (an extension of existing funding levels), there will be an across-the-board government spending cut due to that deal. It was originally intended to bring both sides to the table, but new budget estimates show the cuts would disproportionately impact nondefense spending.
            • Hardline Republicans' reaction to the new agreement indicates that honeymoon period may be coming to a close.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (50%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Senate Republicans want to extend current government funding levels into March but does not mention the reason for this extension. The author also quotes Mitch McConnell stating that they are doing so because of time constraints and need more time to negotiate spending bills, which is misleading as there is no indication in the article that any negotiations have taken place or will take place. Additionally, it states that an estimated extension into March would be most likely for lawmakers but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
            • The article claims Senate Republicans want to extend current government funding levels into March without stating why they need the extension.
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statements of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other politicians without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential consequences of a government shutdown, such as furloughs and cuts to programs that Americans rely on.
            • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Tuesday,
          • Bias (85%)
            The article is biased towards the Republican party and their efforts to extend government funding. The author uses language that dehumanizes federal employees who would be furloughed if Congress doesn't meet its deadlines, such as 'thousands of federal employees would be furloughed'. This creates a sense of urgency for readers to support the Republican party in their efforts to avoid a shutdown. The author also uses quotes from Senate Republicans that reinforce this narrative and portray them as working towards finding a solution while House Democrats are depicted as being uncooperative.
            • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Tuesday, referencing a continuing resolution, a measure that would temporarily extend current government funding levels.
              • thousands of federal employees would be furloughed
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                The article discusses the Senate Republicans' desire for another extension to avoid a government shutdown. The author is Mitch McConnell, who has financial ties with companies that may benefit from the continuing resolution (CR). Additionally, there are examples of personal relationships between McConnell and other politicians mentioned in the article.
                • Mitch McConnell's net worth was estimated at $12.5 million as of 2019, which includes investments in companies that may benefit from the continuing resolution (CR).
                  • The article mentions Mitch McConnell's personal relationship with John Thune and Susan Collins.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication

                  72%

                  The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                  (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                  A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                  Opinion | House Republicans are right back where they started on spending

                  MSNBC News Wednesday, 10 January 2024 08:56
                  • Unique Points
                    • The current fiscal year will now be funded with an overall spending level of $1.59 trillion, which is the same as before: $886 billion for military and nonmilitary spending.
                    • There was any real dispute about the top-line number says more about the internal dynamics of the House Republican caucus than anything else.
                  • Accuracy
                    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                  • Deception (50%)
                    The article is deceptive in that it presents the agreement between House Republicans and President Joe Biden as a positive development when in fact there was no substantive difference between the two agreements. The author also attempts to present this agreement as a victory for House Republican leader Mike Johnson when in reality he was trying to get ahead of his caucus's messaging guide on Sunday.
                    • The current fiscal year will now be funded with an overall spending level of $1.59 trillion.
                  • Fallacies (85%)
                    The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the agreement between Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as evidence that there is no substantive difference between the two agreements. However, this ignores the fact that McCarthy and Biden had previously agreed to a side deal in which $20 billion in IRS funding cuts would be spread out over two years instead of coming all at once. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing House Republicans as
                    • Bias (85%)
                      The author demonstrates bias by using language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable. The author refers to the House Freedom Caucus as 'the far right' and describes their actions as 'punching themselves in the face'. This is an example of dehumanizing language used to discredit a group with opposing views.
                      • And third, both Johnson and McCarthy seem to be completely ignoring the two years that the GOP spent during the Trump administration with control of both the House and Senate – and yet, without a Democratic president to blame, ramped up spending and exploded the deficit.
                        • That there was any real dispute about the top-line number says more about the internal dynamics of the House Republican caucus than anything else.
                          • The aforementioned Vanilla Ice of it all
                            • The GOP focused on passing (or at least trying to pass) bills that were below the levels put forward, angering Democrats in the process and setting the stage for McCarthy’s removal in September.
                              • What that means in practice is that conservatives will still have plenty of chances to vent their frustrations by trying to attach riders on abortion and other culture war issues to the spending bills as they make their way through the House.
                              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                The article discusses the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the $1.59 trillion spending deal between House Republicans and Kevin McCarthy. The author also mentions Joe Biden's agreement to cut IRS funding by $20 billion in this year's bill instead of spreading it out over two years, which will result in roughly $69 billion in rescissions from IRS spending and money allocated to Covid being reallocated to other nondefense programs. The article also mentions the House Freedom Caucus and their role in shaping the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
                                • The article also mentions the House Freedom Caucus and their role in shaping the Fiscal Responsibility Act
                                  • The author discusses the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was passed by Congressional leaders including Kevin McCarthy
                                    • The author mentions Joe Biden's agreement to cut IRS funding by $20 billion in this year's bill instead of spreading it out over two years
                                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                      None Found At Time Of Publication

                                    85%

                                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                    UPDATE 1-Yellen says top-line federal spending deal consistent with debt ceiling pact

                                    Yahoo Finance David Lawder Wednesday, 10 January 2024 08:58
                                    • Unique Points
                                      • The upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury will provide information on how much bond supply there will be
                                      • Regarding frozen Russian assets, G7 countries are weighing options and no decisions have been made yet
                                    • Accuracy
                                      • The House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reached a deal to set a maximum spending limit for discretionary programs at $1.59 trillion for the 2024 fiscal year ending Sept. 30, but accelerates about $20 billion in cuts to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) funding
                                      • The IRS will continue its important work in modernizing our tax system with an annual 'tax gap' of as much as $160 billion
                                    • Deception (100%)
                                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                                    • Fallacies (85%)
                                      The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when he quotes Yellen's statement that the deal is consistent with last June's debt ceiling agreement without providing any evidence or reasoning for this claim. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by stating that there are only two options: either Congress will reach a spending deal and avoid shutting down the government, or it won't. This oversimplifies complex issues and ignores other potential outcomes such as negotiations breaking down entirely or reaching an agreement with different terms than those currently being discussed. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when he describes Yellen's statement that a federal government shutdown could be avoided as
                                      • Bias (85%)
                                        David Lawder has a clear bias towards the government and its actions. He uses language that portrays Congress as responsible for keeping the government running and avoiding shutdowns, which is not entirely accurate. Additionally, he presents Yellen's statements in a positive light by saying she believes the deal reached by congressional leaders is consistent with last June's debt ceiling agreement and will not harm IRS modernization drive in the near term.
                                        • David Lawder uses language that portrays Congress as responsible for keeping the government running and avoiding shutdowns, which is not entirely accurate.
                                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                                          None Found At Time Of Publication
                                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                          David Lawder has conflicts of interest on the topics of Janet Yellen and federal spending deal. He also has a financial tie to Mike Johnson.