This morning CQ has a piece explaining that the main obstacle to finishing the fiscal 2012 appropriations process by mid-November is the battle over offsetting disaster aid.

The current version contains $3.6 billion in aid, including $1 billion immediately for the federal Disaster Relief Fund , and the Army Corps of Engineers’ flood control program. It also would appropriate $2.6 billion in further disaster funding for the coming fiscal year. The continuing resolution would offset the additional $1 billion in emergency spending by taking away unobligated funds from the Energy Department’s advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan guarantee program. Democrats in both chambers oppose the offsets sought by House Republicans. Senate Democrats signaled Thursday they have the votes to strip the offsets when they adopted, 62-37, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s $6.9 billion disaster aid measure (H J Res 66) without any payfors. The vote came after the chamber rejected two GOP proposals to offset the cost of the funding, which Reid’s legislation designates as emergency spending.

If you remember, there was much outrage (for lack o a better word) when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor demanded that this new emergency spending be offset by reducing other federal spending. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill, for instance, was fast to explain that Cantor’s position was the product of the tea party:

Eric Cantor’s political position here is an indication of how painful it can be to be a tried-and-true tea party member when Mother Nature is bringing things crashing down.

Yet the tea party has nothing to do the demand that new spending–even legitimate emergency one–be offset with spending cuts. Watchdog groups, including the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, have supported changing the congressional habit of shortchanging initial disaster relief appropriations in bills that are subject to annual budget caps, and later backfilling the disaster fund through emergency supplemental spending that falls outside of the caps. Here is CRFB:

In the wake of Hurricane Irene and last week’s job report, calls for Washington to enact some form of emergency spending measures have intensified. Given recent events and the weak economy, such measures may indeed be warranted. Given our country’s fiscal situation, however, we cannot afford to add to our already massive debt burden.
On that note, CRFB’s latest press release urges policymakers to offset any short-term emergency spending measures with gradual spending cuts or revenue increases over the next five to ten years.

The outrage should be that after being downgrade and put of budget watch because of Congress’ unwillingness to address our long term budget explosion, some lawmakers are behaving as if there is no cost to spend and spend and spend. For years now I have been a fervent–even though ineffective–advocate of the pressing need to reform the emergency spending process. Since 1980, emergency appropriations over and above normal budgetary authority have nearly quadrupled, reaching a peak of $174 billion in 2009. To be sure the Republicans share some of the blame for some of this abuse since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been largely funded through emergency appropriations. However, some of the lawmakers who are asking today for yet more emergency spending without offset, such as Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D–La, have been large beneficiaries of the past abuses. As you know, much of the Katrina spending was done through the emergency process and Louisiana certainly benefited from it.

Here is an updated version of my most extensive work of emergency spending process and its abuses.