Incentivize Savings Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
ID: M001218
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 19.
February 4, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this "Incentivize Savings Act" and see what's really going on beneath the surface.
**Diagnosis:** This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Budgetary Bloatitis," a condition characterized by an inability to prioritize spending and a tendency to throw money at problems without actually solving them.
**Symptoms:**
* The bill allocates 49% of unexpended funds to remain available for an additional fiscal year, because who needs actual budgeting when you can just kick the can down the road? * Another 49% goes towards paying off the national debt, a noble goal, but one that's been consistently ignored by Congress in favor of more pressing concerns... like re-election campaigns. * And then there's the pièce de résistance: 2% for retention bonuses within Federal agencies. Because what every government agency needs is more bureaucrats with fat bonuses, not actual results.
**Notable Programs and Agencies:** The bill doesn't specify any particular programs or agencies receiving funds, but we can be sure that the usual suspects will get their share of the pork barrel. Expect plenty of earmarks for pet projects and favored industries.
**Increases/Decreases:** Since this is a new bill, there's no previous year to compare it to. But rest assured, the funding amounts will be "incentivized" by the usual suspects: lobbyists, special interest groups, and campaign donors.
**Riders and Policy Provisions:** The real meat of the bill lies in its policy provisions. Section 2(c) limits budget requests for Federal agencies based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), because who needs actual fiscal responsibility when you can just tie it to an arbitrary metric? And what's with the exclusion of the American National Red Cross from the definition of "Federal agency"? Is that a clever way to sneak in some extra funding for their buddies?
**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** This bill will, of course, have no discernible impact on the national debt or deficit. It's just more window dressing designed to make Congress look like they're doing something about the country's financial woes.
In conclusion, this "Incentivize Savings Act" is a joke, a thinly veiled attempt to justify more government spending and bureaucratic bloat. The real disease here is not budgetary inefficiency, but rather the terminal case of corruption and incompetence that afflicts our elected officials.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2]
ID: B001317
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11]
ID: E000246
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]
ID: B001307
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]
ID: C001118
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Stutzman, Marlin A. [R-IN-3]
ID: S001188
Top Contributors
4
Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]
ID: B001316
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]
ID: F000246
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]
ID: V000134
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]
ID: J000304
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]
ID: S001224
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 48 nodes and 45 connections
Total contributions: $194,350
Top Donors - Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on bureaucratic bloat, lack of fiscal responsibility, and empowerment of party elites aligns with Project 2025's critique of the Administrative State and congressional corruption. However, the bill does not directly address the dismantling of the Administrative State or the restoration of legislative powers to Congress."
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on bureaucratic bloat, lack of fiscal responsibility, and the empowerment of party elites aligns with Project 2025's concerns about corruption, unaccountable federal spending, and the Administrative State. However, the bill does not directly address the dismantling of the Administrative State or restoring constitutional accountability."
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes; — 8 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; l Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and l Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.3 Unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening. Nearly every power center held by the Left is funded or supported, one way or another, through the bureaucracy by Congress. Colleges and school districts are funded by tax dollars. The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment to protect its turf. Members of Congress shield themselves from constitutional accountability often when the White House allows them to get away with it. Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit. Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current Administration come from one place: the Oval Office. The President cannot hide behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the respon- sibility for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and families. A conservative President must move swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it. Properly considered, restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability to the federal government is a continuation of restoring national sovereignty to the American people. In foreign affairs, global strategy, federal budgeting and pol- icymaking, the same pattern emerges again and again. Ruling elites slash and tear at restrictions and accountability placed on them. They centralize power up and away from the American people: to supra-national treaties and organizations, to left-wing “experts,” to sight-unseen all-or-nothing legislating, to the unelected career bureaucrats of the Administrative State.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.