In today's Washington, where nothing gets done, people have to celebrate their victories no matter how small or meaningless they may be.

Take the House version of the annual Financial Services appropriations measure.

That bill was wrapped into an omnibus appropriations bill that included eight bills that had not been considered separately by the House.

As approved in committee, the bill would have made the NCUA subject to the appropriations process – something the credit union trade groups vehemently opposed.

When the bill was considered on the floor, the House passed an amendment to delete that provision. In other words, the NCUA would not be subject to the appropriations process.

Set off the fireworks. Throw up the confetti. There was joy in credit union land.

Except …

The victory was largely symbolic.

That bill had no chance of becoming law.

None.

Congress had already enacted a Continuing Resolution to fund the government into December, so there was no pressure to pass the omnibus bill.

And as expected, the Senate hasn't even considered it.

Or take the Financial CHOICE Act – House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling's (R-Texas) lead balloon that would overhaul the Dodd-Frank Act. That bill included all sorts of goodies that the financial services folks loved.

It neutered the CFPB. It required federal agencies to better tailor rules. It forced them to use cost-benefit analyses before they issued rules.

It was hailed by banks and credit unions alike.

Except, again.

It has no chance of becoming law, as Democratic senators like Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made crystal clear throughout the process.

That should have come as no surprise to anyone, including the authors of the CHOICE Act or supporters of the legislation in the financial services community.

Senate opponents had made it clear when the original CHOICE Act was introduced last year. As a matter of fact, House Financial Services Committee Democrats didn't even bother to offer amendments to the bill last year, saying it would have been a waste of time since it did not have a snowball's chance of ever being passed by both houses or signed by the then-Democratic president who supported Dodd-Frank.

And so, this year's version of the CHOICE Act languishes in legislative limbo, consigned to the legislative trash heap.

What Ever Happened to the Deficit Hawks?

Once upon a time, the halls of the United States Capitol were prowled by birds known as Deficit Hawks.

Had a good idea? Did it also cost a lot of money?

The Deficit Hawks attacked it with a vengeance.

To them the federal deficit was the worst thing since New Coke.

And for a while, they won. Congress and President Clinton actually produced a balanced budget in 1997, after a couple of years of haggling and government shutdowns.

But now, the deficit hawks are dead ducks.

Repealing Obamacare subsidies? Gonna cost the federal government a lot of money? No problem.

Tax cuts? Some folks are yelling that they should be deficit-neutral. In other words, every dollar that is cut should be offset somewhere else in the tax code.

But those folks aren't being listened to the way they once were. Which is probably a good thing for credit unions.

Because if the deficit hawks had their way, the tax cuts would be offset by such things as eliminating tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are special tax breaks in the tax code provided to special industries.

Like credit unions, which as we all know, are tax-exempt institutions.

So, for credit unions, maybe it's best for the deficit hawks to remain comfortably asleep in their nests.

Because you never know whose tax break they might try to devour.

Excuse Me?

He's at it again. I'll hold my tongue about a lot of things that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. has to say.

But not when he comes after the media and my colleagues.

Most recently, President Trump has bloviated that NBC's license should be challenged – and possibly revoked – because of its distribution of “Fake News.”

This is wrong on so many levels. First, NBC does not hold any FCC broadcast licenses. Its affiliates do – some of which are owned by Comcast, NBC's owner.

Second, those stations cannot lose their licenses simply for broadcasting something that somebody doesn't like.

Finally, there's this document called the United States Constitution. You know, the document that Trump pledged to uphold and defend. That document has an entire section that guarantees freedom of the press.

Perhaps Sen. Ben Sasse (R-N.D.), a frequent Trump critic, said it best when he asked, “Mr. President: Are you recanting of the Oath you took on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect and defend the 1st Amendment?”

We're still waiting for Trump to answer that question.

But this kind of attitude gives rise to ideas like the boneheaded one that has sprouted from the brain of Indiana Republican State Rep. Jim Lucas. Lucas, a gun rights advocate says that if the government has the right to require licenses to carry a gun, then the government has the right to license journalists.

He said he proposed licensing journalists in order to demonstrate why gun licensing is unconstitutional. Still, he thinks licensing journalists might be a good idea.

Um … no, it's not!

 David Baumann is a Correspondent-at-Large at Credit Union Times. He can be contacted at [email protected].