Welcome back. Today, we've got a deep dive custom
tailored just for you. We really do. And it's
a fascinating one. It is. We are setting out
on a very specific mission today, demystifying
the single most powerful group in the United
States Senate. The power players. Right. We are
talking about the United States Senate Committee
on Appropriations. Which I know. Yeah, I know
what you might be thinking listening to this.
It sounds dry. Exactly. The word appropriations
sounds like the kind of dry bureaucratic jargon
designed to make your eyes glaze over. Oh, absolutely.
It sounds like an accounting club hidden in the
basement of the Capitol. Right. But. The stack
of notes and historical data we have today paints
a wildly different picture. Let's unpack this,
because while it might sound boring, this committee
is actually the ultimate control room for the
entire U .S. government. It truly is. It's the
engine room of the federal apparatus. Everything
that happens in Washington, every dollar that
moves essentially runs through these doors. To
really grasp why this specific committee holds
the keys to the kingdom, you have to look at
the foundational why. of its existence. The history
of it. Yeah. It goes straight back to the bedrock
of the country. Article 1, Section 9, Clause
7 of the U .S. Constitution. The founders were
terrified of a monarch with a blank checkbook.
Exactly. So the text makes it explicitly clear
that no money can be drawn from the Treasury
without appropriations made by law. Meaning Congress
has to approve it. Right. Furthermore, they demanded
that a regular statement and account of the receipts
and expenditures of all public money be published
from time to time. It's like they hardwired a
failsafe right into the system. The Treasury
isn't just some open vault for whoever happens
to be sitting in the Oval Office. That's the
core of it. You cannot spend a single dime of
the taxpayers' money unless a legislative body
explicitly passes a law saying you can. If we
connect this to the bigger picture, you start
to see the genius of this mechanism. It's a massive
check and balance. An immovable one. It intentionally
separates the power of spending from the executive
branch. meaning the president and the sprawling
alphabet soup of federal agencies. They don't
actually hold the purse strings. Exactly. It
places that power squarely in the hands of Congress.
The executive branch might draft a million ambitious
plans, but they can't execute a single one of
them if Congress refuses to write the check.
The ultimate veto. It is universally known as
the power of the purse, and it's the absolute
source. of this committee's institutional gravity.
What's wild to consider, though, is that this
hyper -focused committee didn't even exist at
the dawn of the Republic. That's right. For the
first several decades, this world -altering power
over the purse sat with the Finance Committee.
They were doing double duty. Yeah, handling both
the money coming in and the money going out.
It wasn't until March 6, 1867, that the Appropriations
Committee was officially spun off to handle the
spending exclusively. Which makes sense when
you think about the historical context there.
Post -Civil War. Right. It's post -Civil War.
The nation is expanding westward and the government
is transforming from a small administrative body
into an industrial era behemoth. So splitting
that power wasn't just administrative housekeeping.
No, not at all. It was an acknowledgment that
funding the nation had become the most complex
job in Washington. Taking the check out of the
hands of the Finance Committee and creating a
standalone Appropriations Committee fundamentally
shifted the power dynamics in the Senate. From
1867 onward, this new entity became the central
hub where the ultimate priorities of the nation
were fiercely debated and decided. Because, as
the saying goes, a policy is just a piece of
paper until it's funded. Exactly. Let's get into
the actual mechanics of that funding because
this is where the theory hits reality for you
listening. The nuts and bolts. Right. When we
talk about the federal budget, it's easy to get
lost in the trillions. I've heard it compared
to a household budget, you know, sitting around
the kitchen table figuring out groceries, but...
That's a bit too simple for what we're talking
about here. Way too simple. Think of it more
like a massive multinational corporation. You
have your fixed overhead. Social Security, Medicare.
Yeah, the bills that auto draft every month,
regardless of what management does. That's mandatory
spending. The Appropriations Committee doesn't
touch that. They control the discretionary spending.
Right. That's the R &D budget, the new acquisitions,
the marketing. They decide whether we are building
a new fleet of submarines or... doubling the
budget for national parks. And that's the crucial
distinction. Discretionary spending is the money
that dictates the actual day -to -day direction
of the country. And to manage this incredibly
complex corporate ledger, the committee relies
on a strict division of labor. carved up into
12 distinct subcommittees. 12 different power
centers. You have a subcommittee for defense,
another for homeland security, one for agriculture.
It covers every square inch of the federal footprint.
And they operate on a timeline that is, at least
in theory, highly regimented. In theory, being
the operative phrase there. Right. The process
is supposed to flow like this. First, an analogous
but separate entity. The Senate Budget Committee
drafts a congressional budget resolution. Setting
the overarching spending ceiling. Exactly. Then
the Full Appropriations Committee takes that
top line number and sets allocations for each
of the 12 subcommittees. And from there, each
subcommittee develops a draft bill covering every
single federal agency under its specific jurisdiction.
But they are bound by those initial ceilings,
correct? They can't just decide to double the
defense budget if the allocation doesn't support
it. They are generally bound by them, yeah, but
there is a notable loophole. Oh. The full Senate
can actually vote to waive those spending limits
if 60 senators agree to do so. Ah, the 60 -vote
threshold. That's a high bar. It is, but it exists.
Once those 12 draft bills are negotiated and
ready, they must be passed by both houses of
Congress and then signed by the president. And
the kicker is, all of this massive legislative
maneuvering has to happen prior to the start
of the federal fiscal year. Which falls on October
1st. October 1st. The magical, perpetually missed
deadline. Almost every time. Anyone who follows
Washington even casually knows that hitting that
October 1st target with 12 neatly wrapped appropriations
bills is practically a myth at this point. The
dysfunction there is undeniable. Missing that
target has become the standard operating procedure
in recent years. And the consequences are severe.
Very. If they fail to pass the individual bills
by October 1st, the government technically has
zero discretionary funding to operate. So to
prevent a total catastrophic shutdown of federal
services, the committee has to draft what is
called a continuing resolution. The infamous
CR. Which is essentially a legislative shrug.
It's Congress saying, we haven't figured out
the budget for next year yet, so just keep spending
exactly what you spent last month on the exact
same things until we sort it out. That's perfectly
put. It is a temporary stopgap measure approved
by Congress and signed by the president just
to keep the lights on. But operating a multi
-trillion dollar superpower on temporary stopgaps
freezes new contracts, stalls military planning,
and generally creates chaos for federal agencies.
They can't plan past the end of the month. Which
brings us to a really telling era of reform,
the 110th Congress. They actually tried to fix
this deeply entrenched dysfunction. They made
a massive structural attempt. At the outset of
the 110th Congress, we saw a major reorganization
effort driven by the leadership at the time.
Right. Chair Robert Byrd from the Senate Appropriations
Committee and his counterpart, Chair Dave Obey
over on the House Appropriations Committee. They
developed a comprehensive reorganizes plan that
provided for common parallel subcommittee structures
between both the House and the Senate. Which,
when you think about it, is stunning that it
wasn't already the case. Seriously. If the House
is organizing their funding bills by agency X
and Y and the Senate is grouping agency Y and
Z together, trying to merge those competing bills
in a reconciliation conference at the 11th hour
is a logistical nightmare. They were speaking
two different structural languages. Exactly.
The explicitly stated. goal of both Chair Byrd
and Chair Obey was to streamline the labyrinthine
process so Congress could actually complete action
on each of the government funding bills on time.
And the context here is just staggering. They
were implementing this overhaul, hoping to achieve
on -time funding for the first time since 1994.
Since 1994. It took them over a decade just to
figure out how to structure their own internal
meetings to get a bill passed on schedule. As
part of this drive for efficiency, they consolidated
power slightly, reducing the total number of
subcommittees from 13 down to the 12 we have
today. And a key outcome of that specific reorganization
was the establishment of a brand new subcommittee.
The Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government. Yes. This was a major consolidation
effort. It brought together funding for the Treasury
Department, the United States Federal Judiciary,
and the District of Columbia. Prior to the 110th
Congress, those critical functions were handled
by two completely separate Senate subcommittees.
Right. By bringing them under one roof, they
simplified the jurisdiction and aligned it perfectly
with the House's architecture. Here's where it
gets really interesting. Because you can't talk
about the structure of the Appropriations Committee
without talking about the raw, unfiltered political
leverage of the committee chair. This is a huge
piece of the puzzle. Now, I want to make something
very clear to you as we get into this. When we
look at historical earmarks, we are just analyzing
the raw math from the historical record. Absolutely.
We are not taking a political stance or endorsing
the practice either way. We are neutrally reporting
on how this works because the leverage a chair
holds to direct localized spending is staggering.
This is what's informally known as pork barrel
spending. The mechanics of that leverage are
straightforward but immensely powerful. The chair
of the Appropriations Committee holds enormous
authority to bring home special hyper localized
projects for their own state. And beyond that,
the chair has the ultimate say on the appropriation
requests made by all the other 99 senators. Think
about that. When you literally hold the pen that
writes the checks for everyone else's political
priorities back home, your influence over the
chamber is nearly absolute. The numbers from
2005 illustrate this perfectly based on our source
material. At that time, the committee chair was
Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska. Right.
Because he held that gavel, the per capita federal
spending in his home state of Alaska skyrocketed
to $12 ,000. Which was double the national average.
One state pulling in twice as much federal money
per person as the rest of the country, purely
because their senator was running the engine
room. This specific breakdown of those 2005 numbers
really underscores the sheer scale of the operation.
In that fiscal year, Alaska secured 11 ,772 special
earmarked projects. 11 ,000. Think about the
logistical effort of inserting nearly 12 ,000
specific line items into a federal budget. The
combined cost of those specific projects was
$15 ,780 ,623. Almost $16 billion in special
projects funneled to a single relatively low
population state. And what really puts the nail
in the coffin is the context of the larger legislative
vehicle. How so? Congress passed a massive Consolidated
Appropriations Act in 2005. It was an omnibus
bill rolling multiple funding measures together
that totaled $388 billion. Okay. Those special
earmarked projects for Alaska alone represented
about 4 % of the overall spending in that massive
national bill. 4 % of a $388 billion national
budget dictated by the geographic allegiance
of one committee chair. It is the literal definition
of the power of the purse in action. So what
does this all mean? How does controlling the
discretionary budget translate into actual lasting
political power within the hierarchy of the Senate
itself? It translates into the ultimate apprenticeship
for running the entire chamber. There is a striking
statistic that perfectly captures this dynamic.
There really is. If you analyze the two decades
spanning from 2001 to 2021, every single Senate
majority leader was either a previous or a concurrently
serving member of the Appropriations Committee.
Every single one, the people who rides to the
very top, the ones who dictate the schedule and
the fate of every piece of legislation, all cut
their teeth on the committee that controls the
money. You look at Tom Daschle. He was a committee
member in the 90s, learning the ropes before
becoming majority leader in 2001. Then you have
Bill Frist, who sat on the committee from 1995
to 2002 before taking over as majority leader.
And the pattern is completely bipartisan. Yeah.
Harry Reid was a committee member from 1989 all
the way to 2006, which overlaps seamlessly with
his time as majority leader beginning in 2007.
And Mitch McConnell. who served as majority leader
from 2015 to 2021, was concurrently serving on
the Appropriations Committee during his entire
leadership tenure. The correlation is impossible
to ignore. Navigating the flow of federal dollars
is functionally a prerequisite for leading the
Senate. It makes total sense when you map it
out. It does. If you know the intimate details
of how the 12 subcommies operate, if you know
how to navigate the discretionary spending limits
and the 60 boat waiver rules. And crucially,
if you have a long history of approving or denying
other senators pet projects. Yes. Yeah. You have
built an unbreakable web of leverage. You know
exactly what every single senator needs to take
back to their constituents. Exactly. Which brings
us to today. Let's look at the current landscape.
Today is Wednesday, March 4th, 2026, and we are
operating in the 119th Congress. Looking at the
rosters for the 119th Congress, it remains the
largest, most sought after committee in the Senate.
Currently, it holds 29 members. Interestingly,
this is down slightly from recent years. The
data notes it had 30 members back in the 117th
Congress. But even at 29. That is nearly a third
of the entire United States Senate sitting on
this one single committee. The current leadership
dynamic for the 119th Congress features Susan
Collins, a Republican from Maine, serving as
the chair, holding the gavel. And Patty Murray,
a Democrat from Washington, serves as the vice
chair. The makeup of those 29 seats is incredibly
tight, reflecting the razor thin margins of the
broader chamber. It is. The committee is split
with a very narrow majority. 15 Republicans and
14 Democrats. A one seat margin, 15 to 14. You
can only imagine the pressure cooker environment
in those markup sessions. What's fascinating
here is how the leadership of this specific committee
requires navigating those incredibly tight margins
to fund the entire federal apparatus. Because
there's no wiggle room. Right. When you only
have a one -seat majority in the committee, every
single vote, every single minor compromise on
every one of those 12 subcommittee bills becomes
a high -stakes, breathless negotiation. A single
senator holding out over a localized issue can
stall the entire federal budget. There is virtually
no room for error or defection if you want to
pass a budget at a committee. Especially when
you remember the broader Senate rules, you have
a committee split 15 to 14 trying to draft bills
that eventually need to survive the full chamber.
If they need to waive spending limits, they need
60 votes. They have to engineer legislation that
can bridge massive partisan divides just to avoid
triggering those catastrophic continuing resolutions
we talked about earlier. This raises an important
question for you, the listener, to consider.
What stands out to you? about how a relatively
small group of 29 people ultimately decides the
financial priorities of an entire nation. It's
intense to think about. They are in those rooms
right now, weighing the needs of defense against
Homeland Security, balancing agricultural subsidies
with the funding for the federal judiciary. It
is an astonishing concentration of responsibility
placed on just over a quarter of the Senate.
It really is. And that brings us to the end of
our journey today. Let's recap what we've unpacked
on this deep dive. We've covered a lot of ground.
You've explored the constitutional origins of
the power of the purse embedded in Article 1,
Section 9. We traveled back to the committee's
formation in 1867 when the post -Civil War boom
forced them to split the checkbook away from
the Finance Committee. We broke down the massive
12 -subcommittee corporate structure designed
to handle discretionary spending. And the 110th
Congress reorganization led by Byrd and Obey
in a desperate bid to get things done on time.
And of course, we examined the staggering localized
power of the committee chair. Looking at the
leverage and the billions in earmarks from 2005,
right up to the razor thin 15 -14 margins defining
the 119th Congress today. If there is one core
takeaway we want to leave you with, it's why
this deeply matters to you. Understanding the
Senate Appropriations Committee is the ultimate
shortcut to understanding how things actually
get done or how they spectacularly stall in Washington.
It truly is the literal engine room. The president
can give speeches and senators can draft ambitious
policy papers, but absolutely nothing moves without
this committee's authorization. It's the brutal
difference between a politician making a campaign
promise and that promise actually being funded
and becoming a reality in your community. Exactly.
But before we sign off, there is one last lingering
piece to this puzzle that we really need to think
about. Yes, there is a broader implication here.
We discussed earlier how the Constitution intentionally
gave Congress the power of the purse to keep
the executive branch in check. It was a brilliant
structural design to ensure the president couldn't
just spend money without the legislative branch
agreeing to it. But we also discussed the modern
reality. Congress continually relies on those
continuing resolutions because they constantly
miss that October 1st deadline to pass specific
new appropriations bills. Right. This leaves
us with a profound question to ponder. If Congress
continually defaults to passing continuing resolutions,
does that essentially put the nation's financial
priorities on autopilot? Just coasting. By failing
to pass new specific appropriations bills on
time, is Congress unintentionally handing power
back to the executive branch and unelected agencies?
Essentially telling them to just keep doing what
they were doing yesterday. Right. Thereby bypassing
their own constitutional check and balance. Wow.
That is a profound puzzle. If you refuse to make
new decisions, you are basically forfeiting your
leverage by default. Something to really think
about. Thank you so much for joining us on this
deep dive. It's been an incredible ride unpacking
the realities of the Appropriations Committee
with you. Remember to keep questioning the systems
that run our world and we'll catch you next time.