Congress has reached an agreement on funding for the next fiscal year with top-line spending at $1.59 trillion, and $886 billion allocated to defense and $704 billion for non-defense discretionary spending.
The government is facing a shutdown deadline in less than two weeks.
The government is facing a shutdown deadline in less than two weeks, and Congress has reached an agreement on funding for the next fiscal year. The deal sets top-line spending at $1.59 trillion, with $886 billion allocated to defense and $704 billion for non-defense discretionary spending. However, there are still major hurdles ahead as conservatives demand more stringent immigration and border security measures be included in the funding bill.
Congressional leaders have reached agreement on the overall price tag of the next batch of government spending bills
The deal would set defense funding at $886 billion and non-defense spending at $704 billion.
House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed the key details of the agreement in a letter to his colleagues, touting concessions Republicans secured such as an expedited cut in funding to the IRS
Agriculture, energy, housing, and transportation programs are among others that are slated to run out of funds on January 19th under the last stopgap government funding bill passed by Congress in the fall.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed in a joint statement that the agreement was a win for Democrats as it keeps intact Biden's negotiations while side-stepping Republican objection.
President Joe Biden expressed support for the funding framework, saying it rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on.
Lawmakers will have to work quickly if they hope to strike a deal in time to stop the latest government shutdown.
Accuracy
Congress still has major hurdles ahead of two funding deadlines: January 19 and February 2
One of those hurdles is how to deal with demands by conservatives to use the funding bill as leverage for more stringent immigration and border security demands
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the deal would set top-line spending for fiscal year 2024 at $1.59 trillion, but this information is not accurate as the actual amount has yet to be agreed upon by Congress and President Biden. Secondly, the article claims that House Speaker Mike Johnson secured concessions in the deal such as an expedited $10 billion cut in funding to the IRS and a claw-back of about $6 billion in remaining COVID-19 relief funds, but there is no evidence to support these claims. Thirdly, the article states that many House Republicans wanted much more substantive cuts to the budget than what was agreed upon, which implies that they were unhappy with the deal when in fact it is unclear whether or not they supported it. Finally, the article quotes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as saying that the agreement was a win for Democrats, but this statement is misleading as there are no details about what specific concessions were made by Republicans.
The deal would set top-line spending for fiscal year 2024 at $1.59 trillion
Many House Republicans wanted much more substantive cuts to the budget than what was agreed upon
House Speaker Mike Johnson secured concessions in the deal such as an expedited $10 billion cut in funding to the IRS and a claw-back of about $6 billion in remaining COVID-19 relief funds
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the agreement reached between President Joe Biden and then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy during negotiations over the government's debt limit last year. However, this does not necessarily mean that their agreement is accurate or reliable. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing some House Republicans as wanting
much more substantive cuts to the budget.
Bias
(70%)
The article is biased towards the Republican party. The author mentions that House Republicans wanted much more substantive cuts to the budget and that they were unhappy with the deal reached by Congressional leaders. This implies a negative view of House Republicans and their priorities.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was chosen to succeed McCarthy, confirmed the key details of the agreement in a letter to his colleagues on Sunday afternoon.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The author is ABC News which has a financial stake in government spending bills as they report on them regularly.
The author is ABC News which has a financial stake in government spending bills as they report on them regularly.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topics of Congressional leaders and government spending bills as they are reporting on a deal that was announced by these leaders. The article does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships between ABC News and the individuals mentioned in the article.
The article reports on a spending deal announced by Congressional leaders, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Congressional leaders announced a spending deal for government funding in 2024
The topline numbers agreed to by House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer include $1.59 trillion for fiscal year 2024, with $886 billion for defense spending and $704 in non-defense spending
They also agreed to a side deal of adjustments that will go toward non-defense domestic spending
The side deal brings the non-defense spending figure to nearly $773 billion, with funding close to $1.66 trillion overall
Congress still has major hurdles ahead of two funding deadlines: January 19 and February 2
One of those hurdles is how to deal with demands by conservatives to use the funding bill as leverage for more stringent immigration and border security demands
The far-right House Freedom Caucus called the negotiated spending deal a total failure, presenting a challenge for Johnson who leads an extremely narrow majority
Johnson wrote in his letter to Republican colleagues that he secured hard-fought concessions from Democrats to unlock the FY 4 funding numbers and allow the Appropriations Committee to begin negotiating and completing the twelve annual appropriations bills
Schumer said in a statement with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that this agreement on non-defense discretionary spending will protect key domestic priorities like veterans benefits, health care, nutrition assistance from draconian cuts sought by right-wing extremists
President Joe Biden said the bipartisan funding framework congressional leaders have reached moves them one step closer to preventing a needless government shutdown and protecting important national priorities
The agreement on non-defense discretionary spending will allow Democrats to keep investments for hardworking American families secured by legislative achievements of President Biden and Congressional Democrats
Democrats will not support including poison pill policy changes in any of the twelve appropriations bills put before Congress.
Accuracy
The topline numbers agreed to by House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer include $1.59 trillion for fiscal year 2024
Freedom Caucus members have been adamant that spending levels be cut dramatically past what congressional leaders announced Sunday
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title suggests that Congress has reached a spending deal to avoid a shutdown when in fact they have only agreed on funding levels for government spending in 2024. Secondly, the author states that there are still major hurdles facing Congress ahead of two funding deadlines: January 19 and February 2. However, it is not clear what these hurdles are or how they will be resolved. Thirdly, the article quotes House Speaker Mike Johnson stating that he has secured hard-fought concessions to unlock the FY 4 topline numbers and allow the Appropriations Committee to finally begin negotiating and completing the twelve annual appropriations bills. However, it is not clear what these concessions are or how they were achieved. Finally, there is no mention of any deception in quotes from other sources such as President Joe Biden.
The title suggests that Congress has reached a spending deal to avoid a shutdown when in fact they have only agreed on funding levels for government spending in 2024.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that President Joe Biden signed into law last spring a funding framework similar to the one being discussed now. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is a good or effective solution for current issues. Secondly, there are examples of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article when discussing the opposition from conservative groups such as the House Freedom Caucus and their demands for more stringent immigration and border security measures. Lastly, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction in the statement 'Freedom Caucus members have been adamant that spending levels be cut dramatically past what congressional leaders announced Sunday.' This creates a false sense of black-and-white thinking where only one option is considered acceptable.
President Joe Biden signed into law last spring a funding framework similar to the one being discussed now.
Bias
(70%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the far-right House Freedom Caucus' demands for spending cuts as a 'total failure'. Additionally, the author mentions President Biden signing into law funding levels last spring which implies that he is responsible for those funding levels and therefore has an interest in maintaining them. This could be seen as monetary bias.
President Biden signed into law funding levels last spring which implies that he is responsible for those funding levels and therefore has an interest in maintaining them.
The far-right House Freedom Caucus called the deal negotiated between the House and Senate leaders a 'total failure'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Manu Raju and Lauren Fox have conflicts of interest on the topics of Congress, government funding, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and $1.59 trillion for fiscal year 2024.
The article mentions that Manu Raju is a CNN reporter covering politics in Washington D.C., which could be seen as a conflict of interest since the site, CNN, has its own political agenda and may not report on all topics objectively.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Manu Raju and Lauren Fox have conflicts of interest on the topics of Congress, government funding, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and $1.59 trillion for fiscal year 2024.
The article mentions that Manu Raju is a CNN reporter covering politics in Washington D.C., which could be seen as a conflict of interest with the topic of government funding, given that Congress and the President are responsible for allocating funds to various programs and agencies.
The bipartisan deal will set the federal government's discretionary spending at a maximum level of $1.59 trillion
House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed the key details of the agreement in a letter to his colleagues
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed in a joint statement that the agreement was a win for Democrats as it keeps intact Biden's negotiations while side-stepping Republican objection
President Joe Biden expressed support for the funding framework, saying it rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on
The growing contingent of GOP hardliners is calling on House Republican leaders to block government funding progress altogether until Democrats make conservative policy concessions to deal with the border crisis.
Accuracy
Congress still has major hurdles ahead of two funding deadlines: January 19 and February 2
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the bipartisan deal will set federal government discretionary spending at a maximum level of $1.59 trillion when in fact this figure was part of an agreement mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) last year and is not actually new or negotiable. Secondly, it states that the final top line would also include an additional $69 billion in nondefense discretionary spending but fails to mention that this amount was part of a McCarthy and Biden side deal at the time which means it has already been accounted for in previous negotiations. Thirdly, when discussing cuts to discretionary spending, the article states that these will offset the deal but does not provide any specifics on what those cuts are or how they will be implemented. Finally, while stating that there is still a showdown looming on the horizon and that Democrats have taken a victory lap over the deal, it fails to mention any potential concessions made by either party in order for this agreement to be reached.
This statement is misleading as it implies that there are specific cuts being made to discretionary spending when in fact no specifics on these cuts have been provided.
This statement is misleading as it implies that there are cuts being made specifically for conservative policy riders when in fact no specifics on these cuts have been provided.
This amount was part of a McCarthy and Biden side deal at the time which means it has already been accounted for in previous negotiations.
This statement is misleading as it implies that President Biden has not made any concessions in order for this agreement to be reached.
This figure was part of an agreement mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) last year and is not actually new or negotiable.
The Senate marked up their appropriations bills $14 billion above the FRA levels and the adjustments. The agreement reached today thus allows for none of that funding, and combined with the additional savings described above, results in an overall $30 billion total reduction from the Senate's spending plans
The bipartisan deal will set federal government discretionary spending at a maximum level of $1.59 trillion
President Biden took a similarly hostile posture toward House Republicans even while holding the deal up as a win. He stated, It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties and signed into law last spring
Johnson conceded that these final spending levels will not satisfy everyone, but added, his deal does provide us a path to: 1) move the process forward; 2) reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives
It would include $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense spending, Johnson said. The total to be roughly $1.66 trillion
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Republican party and their efforts to cut government spending. The author uses language that dehumanizes Democrats by saying they are not satisfied with the deal and do not want conservative policy riders included in it. Additionally, there is a clear political bias present as the article mentions President Biden's involvement in negotiations last spring.
As has been widely reported, a list of extra-statutory adjustments was agreed upon by negotiators last summer.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Elizabeth Elkind has conflicts of interest on the topics of government funding and defense spending. She is a member of the House Select Committee on Appropriations which oversees discretionary spending.
The article mentions that Elizabeth Elkind is a member of the House Select Committee on Appropriations, which has oversight over discretionary spending.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Elizabeth Elkind has conflicts of interest on the topics of government funding and defense spending. She is a member of the House Select Committee on Appropriations which oversees discretionary spending.
The article mentions that Elizabeth Elkind is a member of the House Select Committee on Appropriations, which has oversight over discretionary spending.
Congress has reached a $1.66 trillion agreement to finance the federal government in 2024.
The deal allows for $886.3 billion in defense spending and $772.7 billion in domestic discretionary spending.
It rescinds $6.1 billion in coronavirus emergency spending authority and accelerates cuts from $80 billion in new funding that the Internal Revenue Service was supposed to get under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, stripping $20 billion of that total this year.
The agreement mostly adheres to a deal reached by Biden and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) last spring to suspend the nation's debt limit in exchange for limiting discretionary spending to $1.59 trillion in 2024, with 1 percent growth in 2025.
The Freedom Caucus has called the agreement a total failure and totally unacceptable.
Disagreements have emerged over the IRS funding provisions in the new agreement.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the agreement reached by Congressional leaders will almost surely face vehement opposition from far-right House Republicans. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or quotes from these lawmakers indicating their opposition to the deal.
The article claims that there will be a total failure and it's totally unacceptable but does not provide any direct quotations to support this claim.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statements of politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, there are instances where the author presents a dichotomous depiction of events when describing how different groups view the budget agreement.
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statements of politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, there are instances where the author presents a dichotomous depiction of events when describing how different groups view the budget agreement.
Republican Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) stated that he fears that there will ultimately be a deal that's bad for the country and it's bad for deficit and national debt.
Bias
(85%)
The author Jacob Bogage demonstrates bias by using language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable. The article quotes Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) who is described as 'chair of the archconservative House Freedom Caucus' and later refers to the group as 'far-right'. These descriptions are unnecessary for understanding their position in this story, which is simply that they want to cut spending.
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), chair of the archconservative House Freedom Caucus
The deal allows for $886.3 billion in defense spending, and $772.7 billion in domestic discretionary spending... far-right House Republicans were unhappy with that arrangement
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jacob Bogage has conflicts of interest on the topics of Congress and government funding. He is a member of the House Freedom Caucus which advocates for harsh immigration restrictions and abortion access.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of government funding and budget cuts as they are affiliated with Republican lawmakers who have been pushing for these topics.
Bob Good (R-Va.), chair of the archconservative House Freedom Caucus and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) former Speaker of the house.
