Here is the roster of the House Appropriations Committee. It’s pretty up to date, but the second most senior Republican on the committee, Bill Young of Florida, died last week. If you scan the names of the Republicans on the committee, you’ll notice some people you have probably seen quoted in articles saying somewhat reasonable things about the sequester, the government shutdown, the debt ceiling, compromise, the need for revenues and other fiscal and budgetary issues. I’m thinking in particular of chairman Hal Rogers, Deputy Majority Whip Tom Cole, Pennsylvania moderate Charlie Dent, Northern Virginia-based Frank Wolf, and even Arkansan Rep. Steve Womack.
What you need to realize is that these gentlemen are supposed to be sitting on the most powerful and consequential committee in the Congress, and they’ve been left to do virtually nothing because decision-making about how to set our national priorities has been taken away from them by the sequester. Everyone else can be walking around in some ideological cloud, but these gentlemen are responsible for actually running the federal government. With them, money talks and bullshit walks. Even when they try to pass spending bills to replace the sequester, they can’t succeed because the Ryan Budget is so absurdly austere. They may not want to take the heat for violating the Norquist Pledge, but they’re much more sick of not being able to do their jobs. They know that they can’t get a Republican majority to enact the Ryan agenda, and they know that the Senate and the administration would never agree to it even if they were successful. They may not want to admit it, but they actually do know that the only functional majority in the House is a bipartisan majority that is dominated by Democrats.
That’s why Charlie Dent just said, “Bipartisan coalitions are going to have to be assembled in order to get these [spending bills] done.” It’s why Tom Cole just said, “I think both sides would like to deal with the sequester. And we’re willing to put more revenue on the table to do that…” Tom Cole knows that he’ll never get 218 Republican votes for more revenue, but that’s not what he’s suggesting. He, like Dent, knows that the only way to govern now is with a Democrat-majority coalition. The man represents Oklahoma. He is familiar with Obama Derangement Syndrome. But it doesn’t matter to him because the ODS Caucus can’t get anything accomplished. They can shut the government down, but they can’t fund it.
And, guess what? The GOP is coming to the end of the line with being able to spin the sequester as a workable solution to our budget problems. The military’s service chiefs have already testified before Congress, and no one can deny that next year’s scheduled sequester cuts are too quick and too steep to be politically viable. I’m all for massive cuts in defense, but only as part of a coherent and well-planned strategy that is consistent with the strategic guidance laid out by the administration. And it’s not just defense; it’s everything. No Republican House majority can pass a transportation bill or a farm bill. If the farm bill doesn’t get done, we could be looking a $12 gallons of milk next year.
So, the reality is, that the House Republican majority doesn’t really exist. It’s a mirage. They can’t keep going the way they have been going. Their cohesiveness will not hold because it cannot hold. There are things that absolutely have to be done that the House majority in incapable of doing.
And those things will get done. All I ask is that the House moderates and the House appropriators come to their senses sooner rather than later and realize that, unless and until one of their own rank-and-file steps up to fill the void, the only viable leader in the House is Nancy Pelosi.
Careful, Boo – you’re starting to get my blood up. I’m not expecting a progressive wave or anything – not this year anyway – but damn, would it be exciting to have even a semi-functional Congress again. Beyond the sequester, if they can get immigration reform passed it’s going to be huge, huge.
Hal Rogers for Speaker! Bring back the earmark! I’m not even kidding, that world seems so warm and rational from where we’re standing.
Cole wants entitlements that go “beyond what Obama gave him.”
How about this: you hate defense sequestration? Fine. Let’s just lift the whole damn thing. Somehow that never seems to be discussed, when it’s the perfectly rational thing to do; especially if they hate it as much as they say.
they would still need to pass appropriation bills, so it really wouldn’t solve the problem
Pass a CR with the sequester lifted. Back to square one where we aren’t in regular order, but that is all we can afford now. I’d rather cleave the party over immigration than the budget. Stall until 2014.
Nope. you’ve forgotten our bloated defense budget gets high priority, partly due to bases and manufacturing facilities being located in numerous states. any suggestion of a base closure or cutting defense budget immediately results in “jobs will be LOST”. prime example being Ellsworth AFB in Rapid City, SD. for years this has been a base slated for closure and for years the “economic impact” on Rapid City has been used as the excuse to keep it open.
it’s rather easy to predict what will happen with the sequester related to military spending- congress will make an exception for “security reasons”. military spending cuts will be much smaller. democrats in congress will go along with this, because they have bases and manufacturing facilities in their districts.
This makes sense and must be why the administration is willing to initiate the conversation about cutting Social Security. They need to show Republicans that they will meet them more than half way in budget negotiations so they can get the so called ‘moderates’ on their side. I guess this is supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy but it doesn’t.
There’s still a long way to go before sense will seep into their heads.
The prospect of a 2014 wipeout might do it. But that didn’t help the Democrats in 1980 or 2010. They buried their heads in the sand – lost the Senate in 1980 and the House in 2010.
I suspect the only recognition will come after the fact. The Democrats don’t have to win the House in 2014, they just have to substantially improve their position and get a few reliable defectors to be independent minded.
The logjam will likely break post 2014 election – maybe even the lame duck. Only minimal, sporadic breaks until then. The losers don’t have enough fear of losing, and then it will be too late, when they’ve lost.
Older Republicans in the house, including Boehner, remember what happened after the ’95-96 shutdowns. The Republicans took a beating in the polls and then pivoted to the middle; Clinton gave the GOP a lifeline by working to actually get legislation passed.
The GOP lost seats, but not nearly as badly as they could/should have.
If the TP/Libertarian fever is broken, then I would expect Boehner and Co. to do the same. Work with Obama to get legislation passed, show that Government can be functional under Republican leadership, and minimize the damages in ’14.
Sense will never seep into the heads of the hard-core true believers in the House Republican caucus. But if the GOP is truly fed up with them, they can be rendered powerless by the suspension of the Hastert Rule.
In my opinion, as an outside observer, they had better do this pretty soon, or what remains of the GOP will be destroyed.
Is there a “Republicans for Responsible Government” caucus? I doesn’t even have to be as large as the Tea Party caucus – 20 members and 5 Senators will do. Hey, maybe even McCain can become relevant again…
OK perhaps not…
From the way the Senate has functioned this year, it seems that there’s already a de facto “Republicans for Responsible Government” caucus there, and it has closer to 10-20 members depending on the issue.
As Booman keeps pointing out, there’s the potential for up to 80 or so House Republicans—based on, for example, the vote to end the shutdown—to be part of that caucus too.
Yea, I know about the potential numbers, but its a question of organisation. The Tea party caucus is organised so few members every break ranks. Why aren’t the RRG organised?
Good question.
Short answer: Tea Party supporters make up half of the Republican primary electorate.
Because the Chamber of Commerce only recently realized what kind of Frankenstein it had helped create and empower?
From the way the Senate has functioned this year, it seems that there’s already a de facto “Republicans for Responsible Government” caucus there, and it has closer to 10-20 members depending on the issue.
They only appear at the last minute. So I wouldn’t call them responsible. They still cost this country $24 billion unnecessarily.
The “Republicans for Responsible Government” is heavily parenthesized…
First of all, more analysis like this. This is the niche that no one seems to be covering as well as you do.
That would be the attitude typical in the past. Are the statements you quote enough to say that these guys still reflect this attitude. And why is it that they haven’t kept the true faith of the GOP? Some more detailed analysis in how the current incentives and motivations play out is needed to justify a “return to normal Congressional behavior” assertion.
The revenue that these guys need to put on the table, if they want to move things along is, strangely enough, a financial transaction tax. We are talking politically here from their point of view. First of all it is the functional counterpart for revenues of what defenders assert about the chained-CPI. That is, it offends a natural constituency of the GOP but does not materially affect them very much and could have substantial effects on the deficit and debt. Second, while it raises taxes, it does not raise taxes on most Republicans’ constituents and base. Third, it can add substantial revenues to the federal budget and loosen the noose of the austere Ryan budget. That it happens also to be good policy that might contribute at least modestly to jobs growth and prevent inflation and future bubbles is a side benefit.
The political viability of cuts have mostly to do with where they impact (i.e. depress) the local economy. The sequester puts the military chiefs (and the Obama administration) in a bind because cuts have to be score by the members of Congress whose districts are affected. Purely strategic considerations with respect to national security get warped by Congressional political considerations. It is a problem when a single or a few districts have the employees for the procurement projects that must be cut. It is politically suicidal if they are Democratic districts and politically controversial if they are Republican districts. That would lead in a pure fical policy world to cutting back forward deployment and basing overseas, especially in nations capable of handling their own defense. But you now are having an economic impact on specific regions of allies in time of economic recession and austerity policies. And allies need lead time to backfill withdrawing US troops and to negotiate arrangements for transfer or return of facilities.
Notice that these are political considerations and not national security considerations. There is no fear of political vacuums about these considerations. Just maintaining the trust that is the fundamental part of an alliance.
The farm bill is a very interesting political animal for Republicans this year. I doubt that we will see $12/gallon milk this year as a result of the failure of the farm bill; production depends on total herd size. I don’t know how quickly a dairy farmer can reduce costs by reducing production. You are more likely to see $2/gallon milk and a selloff of herds this year (especially if there looks like no farm bill is a permanent condition) and $12/gallon milk the following year as a result of overselling of herds. And more consolidation in the dairy industry.
Nonetheless, the political consequences will be more immediate for the political party that believes that the US economy does not require a farm bill. You already have ranchers in the high plains screaming about the lack of disaster assistance to deal with recovery from a blizzard.
A rational view of the situation in the House indicates that there should be a rearrangement of working majorities. I am sceptical of enough GOP members of Congress coming to their senses to make this happen, but the evidence you cite here is encouraging.
Well, it’s two things. First, the government stopped producing production reports that the farmers use to control supply, which could cause a shortage of milk. But there’s also the subsidies.
I grew up during the era in which the 1949 farm bill was in effect. There is something screwy in the logic of that article, which likely reflects the Milk Producers Association’s eagerness to get the 2012 farm bill passed.
If there is a shortage (local or national), prices will go up somewhere as long as the shortage exists. And the government subsidies will only be involved if the price in a shortage situation is less than the government-set standard cost to trigger supports. Anybody know what that is and when it was set?
If there is overproduction and the price drops below the government-set standard cost, the government buys up until the price rises to above the standard cost. What the government did when I was growing up was provide that surplus to school lunch programs, which offset purchases they made. The government as late as the 1970s provided surplus food to Native American communities, a practice that did not work out so well because of cultural differences in diets.
The situation is not as farcical as the author of the article makes it sound. But if the surplus is poorly canned butterbeans provided to school lunches, a high proportion of them go directly in the garbage cans at the end of lunch. But surplus milk and surplus cheese (except for pasteurized process cheese spread–pseudo-Velveeta) rarely went to waste.
There is a lot of impractical ideology lurking in the criticisms of the 1949 farm bill, which the same dairy lobbyists kept on the books as it was for quite a while.
The Cry of the True Republican – NYTimes.com
Ah, the piteous roar of the RINOsaur as it sees the asteroid streaking toward the ground before it.
Taft the younger is just as much a fraud as his relative is. Must read:
http://coreyrobin.com/2013/10/23/the-moderate-and-the-mccarthyite-the-case-of-robert-taft/
They may not want to take the heat for violating the Norquist Pledge…
The right way to do it would be to embrace the heat. Revel in it. Denounce Grover Norquist as an unpatriotic fool. If you want to spend every waking moment ranting and raving about the deficit, fine, but don’t expect to be taken seriously if you’re not even willing to consider one of the most obvious solutions.
“So, the reality is, that the House Republican majority doesn’t really exist. It’s a mirage. They can’t keep going the way they have been going. Their cohesiveness will not hold because it cannot hold. There are things that absolutely have to be done that the House majority in incapable of doing. “
This makes sense, but where it does it leave Boehner?
Contrary to widespread predictions, he seems to have survived the recent debacle unscathed. But if the Republican Establishment is serious about getting serious with the tea party, I don’t see how they can do it without Boehner. That means he’s going to have to stop humoring the tea party and permanently suspend the Hastert rule.
I think this is where the shit hits the fan.