Ever since 2007, when the independent socialist Bernie Sanders graduated from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate, the House has been made up of some combination of 435 Republicans and Democrats.
Two parties.
That’s it.
And, you may have noticed that even when an independent or third party member is elected to Congress (remember the Connecticut for Lieberman Party?), they have to caucus with one of the two major parties.
So, for example, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine caucuses with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats. Joe Lieberman caucused with the Democrats. This enables them to occupy a seat on committees. If you don’t belong to a party, you have no seat on a committee. In fact, if the leader of the party doesn’t like how you vote, you can lose your seats on committees.
It’s simply not possible to function as a true independent in either the House or Senate and be an effective representative. It’s hard enough for outsider candidates to get elected in the first place, but you have to give up most of your independence once you get to Congress even if you are elected as a member of the Green Party or the Wingnuts for Satan Party, or whatever. This is one of the main reasons why people who insist on talking about the importance of third parties are politically naive. There are a handful of states with meaningful third parties, but they won’t work on the federal level. I have some theories about how to use the unorthodox ballot access rules in a few states to create a progressive rump party in Congress, but I’ll save those ideas for another day.
The important thing is that our Congress is a de facto two-party institution. That’s not what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, but it’s still the result mainly of the rules they laid down.
Now, while there has traditionally been some overlap in ideology between the parties (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans), there are certain things that the majority party needs to do on its own without any help from the party in the minority. The most important responsibility of Congress is to raise the money we need to operate the government and to then figure out how to spend that money. This is called the appropriations process. One of the advantages of controlling the appropriations process is that you get to add money to study colon cancer or to protect a wildlife area or to rebuild a crumbling bridge in your district.
Broadly speaking, Democrats and Republicans have much different priorities about where and how they’d like to spend federal money. I’m not talking about fights about the size of government. Obviously, the Republicans generally want to spend less money on fewer things. But they still want to spend trillions of dollars. Since they control both houses of Congress, it’s their job to decide how much money to give to the Departments of Justice and Education and Commerce and Energy and so on. The Democrats on the appropriations committees mostly just sit there like wallflowers and vote against everything the Republicans want to do. There’s a little bit of backscratching that goes on where the Dems will give their votes on something to get a crumb for something they care about, but it basically sucks to be a minority appropriator. What you mainly do is watch the other side gut your cherished program to fund something you consider idiotic.
In recent years, it’s even gotten depressing to a be a majority appropriator. This is because, first of all, the Tea Party folks hate Republican appropriation bills and are always demanding that they include superfluous stuff like bans of funding for Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act. If you are a Republican who sits on the Appropriations Committee, you can be almost assured of a primary challenge from the right, and this is true even if you go through the motions of trying to satisfy the Tea Partiers despite knowing that the president will veto your efforts.
The second reason it’s depressing to be a Republican appropriator is that Congress doesn’t pass stand-alone appropriations bills anymore. There used to be about 13 separate bills that were used to fund the whole government. One would be for the Defense Department, and that one still gets the normal treatment. The rest, though, the bills for funding everything from the IRS to the SEC to our national parks to Veteran’s Affairs, get wrapped up into one giant bill called an “omnibus.” What they typically do is just agree to keep funding at the same levels that they were last year, so most of the work the appropriators do is wasted and goes for virtually nothing.
There’s a third reason that it’s no longer desirable for a Republican to actually have some say-so in how our federal tax dollars are spent, and that’s because the party got obsessed with so-called “earmarks” and banned them. This means that you can no longer set aside some money for your local community college or to fix that crumbling bridge in your district. You also have nothing to trade to a lawmaker of the other party whose vote you need. In the past, maybe you could fix his bridge and he’d fund your vocational program. Those days are long gone.
Still, despite all the dysfunction, the government does get funded. But here’s the crazy part.
The Democrats have to vote to spend the money. They don’t get to decide how the money will be spent because they aren’t in the majority on the appropriations committees. They actually vociferously disagree with how the money is being spent. But the Republicans will not vote for their own appropriations bills. They won’t vote for the omnibus bill, either. Whenever John Boehner has tried to pass his own spending bills using just Republican votes, he’s failed. He goes to Nancy Pelosi and asks her to get some of her members to vote to keep the government open.
There are a couple of reasons why Pelosi has been willing to do this despite her party not having a say in how the money is allocated and despite them not agreeing with how the money is allocated. The most important is that we have a Democratic president and he gets blamed if Congress can’t keep the government open and the country and its economy goes in the crapper. This is even a bigger consideration when it comes to raising the debt ceiling to authorize the payment of the bills Congress has incurred. It’s not popular to raise the debt ceiling and it’s really the responsibility of the party in the majority to do it, but the Democrats have provided most of the votes simply to prevent chaos and global recession from taking down their president.
The other reason the Democrats have gone along with this unusual arrangement where they vote for the Republicans’ appropriations is that the Democrats believe in government and would rather see it limp along in a crippled state than watch it drowned in a bathtub.
But here’s the thing.
The Democrats have really taken on the role of enablers here, in the same classic way in which people inadvertently help alcoholics and drug addicts continue to use their substance of choice by smoothing over the full consequences of their actions. When John Boehner can’t keep the government open or pay our bills and protect our nation’s credit rating, he should crash and burn. His party should crash and burn. Instead, it’s like Pelosi hires him a high-priced lawyer to quash that conviction for drunken driving. Boehner lives for another day, but his party still can’t govern on its own.
In reality, whatever coalition of elected representatives ultimately votes for the appropriations bills is the coalition that controls Congress. They are the functional majority that produces the most important thing that Congress is responsible for doing. And if that functional majority is made up of mostly Democrats, then the Democrats ought to be making the decisions about not just whether that money is spent but how it is spent.
The Democrats have not insisted on this, but here’s how it would look in practice.
The Speaker would figure out how to find 218 members who will vote to fund the government. Then those 218 members would get together and elect leaders to serve on the appropriations committees. Most of the those leaders would be Democrats because most of the 218 members willing to spend money to keep the government open would be Democrats.
Now, if John Boehner threatened to actually do this and his threat had any credibility, a lot of Republicans would stop dicking around and get on board with being responsible adults. If the Republicans who don’t want to be led by Democrats got reasonable, it would turn out that Boehner only needs 30 or 40 Democrats to keep the government operating. They’d have to give the Democrats a few slots, but not the majority of them.
This isn’t any different from how a true parliamentary system works, where in order to get a majority the biggest party often has to give some ministerial posts to some smaller allied parties.
Yet, since Boehner isn’t willing to make his arrangement with Pelosi formal and admit that he needs her help to govern, he’s decided to step down. Kevin McCarthy discovered that he’d have to formalize this arrangement with Pelosi, too, or promise the Freedom Caucus of his own party that he’d shut down the government and default on our debts. Since he’s not willing to shut down the government and default on our debts, he decided to pass the gavel to someone else. Paul Ryan doesn’t want to be Speaker for a hundred reasons, but one of them is that he doesn’t want to shut down the government and default on our debts.
But no Republican can pass the appropriations bills and raise the debt ceiling without asking Pelosi for help. And, at this point since Boehner announced his resignation, no Republican can get elected Speaker without doing one of two things. Either they have to promise to not pass the appropriations bills and raise the debt ceiling, or they have to ask for Pelosi’s help in getting the votes they need to win the gavel.
I know this can seem dull to go over this so repetitively, but it’s essential to understanding the point we’ve reached in Congress.
It’s true that the people elected vastly more Republicans than Democrats to serve in the House of Representatives, but the Republicans are not the majority where it counts. The majority that counts is the majority that provides the votes to fund the government and pay our bills. Period.
The Democrats have enabled the Republicans to badmouth Washington DC and Congress and pretend that they can do things like default on our debts and keep the government shut down. This has only led the Republicans to grow a bigger and bigger tolerance for resisting basic reality. Finally, something snapped and broke. Basically, the GOP overdosed on their own bullshit and now they have no idea how to dig out of the hole they spent so much time digging.
So, really, the GOP has no choice but to extend a hand and ask for help. And the Democrats have no reason to reach out their hands in return, especially until they’re damn sure that the Republicans realize that they hit rock bottom and need to change basically everything about their lives.
If there needs to be a coalition that will keep the government open and pay our bills, and there definitely needs to be one of those, then that coalition should elect the next Speaker. That Speaker can be a Republican. Given the makeup of Congress, that Speaker ought to be a Republican. But that Republican needs to bring some Democrats into their leadership team and put some Democrats in charge of some committees, particularly appropriations committees.
This is the only way Congress can actually function.
The alternative is to default on our debts and probably cause a global recession or even a global depression.
The only other possibility is that everyone from the president to the congressional Democrats to the moderate Republican establishment agrees to completely capitulate to the most radical rump of the Republican Party and give them everything they want.
Since no one wants to do that, it would seem that a coalition government in the House is the only way to go.
Now, this won’t happen just because it makes sense.
If it happens at all, it will happen because the Republicans realize that they cannot elect a Speaker on their own who hasn’t promised to deliver a global catastrophe as early as December when our bills come due and we have to raise the debt ceiling.
Chances are, many of them already realize this. I know Boehner, McCarthy and Ryan realize it.
But the rank-and-file may have to stare into the abyss from the very precipice before they can come to grips with how far their disease has advanced.
To summarize, the only majority that matters in Congress is the majority that funds the government and pays the bills. If the Republicans cannot supply one on their own, they cannot be the majority on their own. The Democrats led them to believe otherwise. But the truth has won out.
[Cross-posted at Progress Pond]
Do you think that it might be worse for the Republican Party in the short term (and just for them, of course, not for the country) if the Democratic Party somehow picked up the House in 2016? It’s not out of the question. Raw demographic advantage will close a lot of the gap, as racial minorities + Millenials will make up around 3% more of the electorate than it did in 2012. And if the Republican Party does something stupid like nominating, well, pretty much any of the clowns — especially Kasich — the Democrats could squeak by a win.
The Republican Party could resume acting as an uncompromising opposition party without threatening the careers of the party leadership or taking down the government. Of course, that would also mean not dealing with any of their structural problems. They’d just make them worse in time for 2018, when the Republican Party would be all-but-assured to capture both Chambers again.
You mean better for the Republican Party and the nation over the long run, right?
Oh no, I get it, sorry.
This sort of analysis is so above and beyond the current level of political discourse that most Americans would think you’re a martian if you laid it out to them. They haven’t the slightest understanding of the institutions that make up their gub’mint. Most do not know what party controls Congress, let alone either house. Hell, a substantial number do not know there are two houses.
One might think that this Repub crack-up would be a political boon to an opposition party. That perhaps they would come up with a unified message that conservative Repubs cannot govern the country, explain that they’ve been enabling these demented barbarians until now and they aren’t going to do it anymore unless they are given some responsibility. Yet we know they will quail from this, and there will never be an explanation of what’s going on. Shit, the corporate media won’t even identify the Repub factions involved.
It’s tempting to think this crisis was some grand scheme of the Drunk to liberate himself from the lunatics and obtain the de facto Coalition of the Sane that you describe–with the hapless Dems of course voting to keep our sham gub’mint running but having no say in anything having to do with it. I have to say I really doubt the Drunken Boner is this Machiavellian, although certainly the investor class must be hoping this is the case.
When the Dems cannot even tell the story of what’s going on, badger the corporate media to reveal the nature of the crisis, explain that this is what your country on conservative crack looks like, it’s hard to see how they could ever have the will and determination to break the back of the American Fascist Party. They are our Weimar opposition.
Not totally fair to the Weimar opposition, at least after the Reichstag fire, when they were beaten, jailed and encamped, murdered, and exiled. But even before totalitarianism, in 1929-33 there was little the Social Democrats in particular could have done in the face of conservatives (the “moderate Republicans” in the analogy) abandoning coalition with the left in favor of encouraging the NSDAP (and the Communists shamefully cooperating with NSDAP under orders from Moscow). Weimar conservatives never were an opposition to Hitler until, as Pastor Niemöller said, “they came for me and there was nobody left to speak”.
Well, the SPD could have joined their union allies in endorsing Wladimir Woytinsky’s proposal for a New Deal-like public works program, instead of endorsing the conservatives’ do-nothing response to the Depression. They basically ceded the issue to the far left and the far right.
You mention the problem with lack of earmarks but gloss over its importance, it seems to me.
Without a means of enforcing party discipline, rewarding “good behavior” and punishing “bad behavior”(other than removing people from leadership positions, which they can take as a badge of honor for external fund-raising), it’s unsurprising that there’s a lack of party discipline in the House.
It seems to me that the House must be able to (within limits) direct how money is spent. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with earmarks. It is important for the national government to direct spending and development in under-served areas, for example. Earmarks don’t change the amount of money spent, they just direct where it is spent. If you’re worried about abuse, set a limit of 1% or 5% or whatever was the historical norm.
But the biggest reason why the House is dysfunctional is the continuing presence of the Hastert Rule. As long as Republicans act as if only Republicans matter, they are at the mercy of their loons and freaks and clowns on the fringe.
If there’s no Hastert Rule, then there would be bargaining for votes in the middle. If there’s earmarks, then horse-trading can return to build consensus – “Support my bill on this, and I’ll support your bill on that.”
Those two things would fix the House. No need for the majority electing a minority party speaker or burning the House down because the minority is enabling the bomb throwers or whatever.
How? Dunno. Maybe a discharge petition. The House rules are arcane, but I’m sure clever people can make it happen.
Will it happen? Probably not anytime soon. And it’ll be delayed if the GOP/Teabaggers continue to have the majority. Their actions show that they’re not interested in governing, they’re interested in gumming up the works and bomb throwing and posturing about how pure and “conservative” they are. They don’t want the House and the federal government to work better. Until they’re voted out of office, or reduced to such a small minority that they can no longer affect the outcome in the House, they’ll be a problem.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Yes on earmarks, getting rid of them was a terrible piece of self-destructive demagoguery. And certainly the Hastert rule is just idiocy.
This is why the solution proposed yesterday by commenter Curtadams makes some solid sense, that Boehner can just remain Speaker until the elections next November–he stuck to the Hastert rule because it was the one thing that stopped the crazies from firing him, and now that he’s resigned they can’t fire him, but it’s turning out that they can’t find an alternative either, so he could be the prime minister of the We-Have-to-Pass-Appropriations-Anyway coalition Booman’s talking about.
But he should have done it three years ago, and I think his fecklessness and venality as demonstrated over the past six years disqualifies him; they need some other Republican to do this job, somebody with a lot of seniority but not a lot of history of involvement in the war between Boehner and Cantor during the Obama years.
Comparing with the European parliament (EP), the Hastert rule is the biggest difference, but the chairs of committes in the US house also appear to wield considerable power. In the EP, the speaker and chairs are elected to chair the proceedings, not rule them. They have agenda-setting power, but they don’t decide the outcome. Proposals routinely leave committees that go against the will of the committee chair and the speaker allows all motions that fulfill formal criterias. This often leads to literally hundreds of motions on a bill, which can be confusing. But at least if there are proposals that a majority supports, they are sure to reach the floor.
Committee chairs are divided between the parliament groups (mostly) according to size, but then again they don’t matter as much as in the US House.
You’re right that the committee chairs do have lots of power in the US House. E.g. Bob Goodlatte refused to simply vote on the Senate immigration reform bill – a bill that supposedly would have passed easily.
I’m not sure the EP is a good model for the US – it has lots of critics. 🙂 But it’s good to recognize that there are different models.
Cheers,
Scott.
The EP’s main problem is that the EU is stuck somewhere between the Articles of confederation and a proper federal constitution, with the ECB and the (on paper informal) Eurogroup using the crisis to grab power both on federal and national levels. Sort of if First bank of America had been established before the US constitution and promptly gone on to use its funding powers to grab power together with a conference of governors.
But EP’s procedures work. They even handle a sizeable minority of the MEPs wanting to abolish the EU.
I see that we’re saying much the same thing, but in different words and drawing different conclusions.
I don’t think that Democrats would demand chairs on committees or subcommittees, nor should they, when they’re in the minority. (They shouldn’t and wouldn’t want to be forced to do the same if/when the situation turns.) All that’s required is that important things (budget bills, etc.) come up for a vote without regard to whether the whip count on the majority side is enough to pass it.
I think a simple agreement with the Speaker that he will do away with the Hastert rule would be a good start. He’s already done so in many occasions in the past, he should just cut the cord and be done with it.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who needs to finish his tea and wake up.)
They shouldn’t and wouldn’t want to be forced to do the same if/when the situation turns.
But that’s just it, it won’t. Unless the parties have a complete restructuring whereby there are so many leftists elected into Congress under the Democratic ticket (and I frankly can’t think of one leftist in Congress) that they refuse to work with the Democratic leadership on passing the debt ceiling unless the means of production are given to the workers…where is the comparison?
It’s not about 218 Bernie clones storming the ramparts. It’s about the party having the majority changing. If Barbara Lee became Speaker in the 2020s (after the next Census), then she and the Democrats wouldn’t want to give up chairs to the Teabaggers.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
I don’t mean 218 Bernie clones — although he’s not a leftest either, just a liberal social democrat (effectively). And if there were 218 Bernie clones, the lights would stay on. I mean 40 or so hardcore leftest equivalents forming a caucus like the “Freedom” Caucus who would mess up a Democratic majority, forcing the Democrats to rely on Republicans for votes to keep the lights on.
I do not see that happening, not now, not in 2028. So no, I would not want to give seats to Teabaggers (although we would be giving the seats to alleged moderate Republicans, not Teabaggers). But I can’t foresee any scenario whereby the Democrats would require Republican votes like they require Democratic votes now.
I fear 40 economic conservatives who support abortion rights and same-sex marriage taking over the party for the glory of charter schools and the carried-interest deduction.
They’d be cheered to the echo by approximately half the progressive community. Because it is badly split between the heirs of two different traditions.
Does she, and the Democrats. want to give up chairs to Teabaggers now?
The short-term solution might look like that, but that’s still enabling. It’s not the Hastert Rule that’s the problem. It’s letting the Republicans persist with their bullshit. There is no reason why Dems should vote for Republican appropriations bills if they haven’t had a say in how the money is spent. The GOP needs to act like a majority party, which means they have to learn how to fund the government on their own or share power with those who will fund it.
Boo is right, the Democrats need to have influence on the budget legislation. They have to feel they’re doing something for their constituents, not just closing their eyes and thinking of England. The simple agreement is kind of what they have already, with an interval of destructive punk entertainment when the wacky faction shuts down the government in the middle of the process, and then when they’re done the others pass the crappy omnibus.
Tremendously clear, succinct analysis, thanks. Boo, could you make a separate category in side menu for this post and perhaps some others – essential reading for serious discussion of how our gov does/ doesn’t/ might/ work. Interesting that in fact we are on the verge of a solution to at least keep gov functioning, clear analysis can help discussion that can move us forward.
Second that sentiment.
That’s a good idea
Agreed. Somewhat lengthy posts that set out bedrock principles of politics, procedure, etc, are always nice when set aside for easy access.
has an interview with Freedom Caucus member Nick Mulvany who states that House members are not allowed to amend bills and are given complete bills on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. He also states that many bills are written in the back room by 25 YO staffers. His point is that many legislators want more legislative debate, more amendments, more voting on stuff.
This is a common complaint by legislators. In IL, the entire legislature is run by the D and R leaders of the House and Senate, and members claim they have little say. That is certainly not an appropriate approach.
It seems to me that bills are written in the relevant committees. That’s what they’re for. Amendments offered on the floor are usually, especially these days, designed to either gut the bill or to throw in extraneous, unrelated riders (cutting off ACORN or PP funding, etc.).
If a member doesn’t like a bill, they should vote no.
The House can’t function if members don’t have the discipline to only offer germane amendments. And it can’t function if the body as a whole is voting on multiple amendments from 435 members on many/most/every piece of legislation that reaches the floor.
ThinkProgress has an article about Brat’s “we just want more democracy in the House” manifesto. It’s a Trojan horse designed to make it impossible for the House to function, and to break the government.
Cheers,
Scott.
Not just sour grapes but invincible teahadi ignorance as to how the process works. They think committee meetings are for getting TV time screaming at Cecile Richards.
The other thing is (as Boo points out in the OP) the appropriation bills hardly get written at all any more, since they’re basically just the omnibus leaving spending levels unchanged, and it’s because newly written bills can’t pass.
If it does, that will mean Democrats will have had real input. Here’s hoping!
Exactly.
No actually-existing legislative body, starting with your local school board, re-writes legislation on the floor via the amendment process.
Hell, the Athenian Boulē was handing pre-drafted proposed legislation to the Ekklēsia, approximately 20 minutes after democracy was invented.
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ How to Fix the House of Representatives
Actually, that is how the European Parliament functions. Before the voting there are lists distributed by Party Group leadership as well as organisations and lobbyists on their preference for how parliamentarians should vote. Parliamentarians press the buttons, computers register and add up, speakers note which proposal wins. Seems to work.
That’s just committee-by-computer.
They’ve simply automated the probouleutic function that every elected assembly has had since the dawn of time.
These are the Freedom Caucus’ talking points on the Speaker election. Sounds reasonable on the face of it. That’s the point: they’re attempting to obscure their very unreasonable demands. If this were all the ouster of Speaker Boehner was truly caused by, a relatively minor discussion over legislative procedure, then we wouldn’t be here.
If the House Freedom Caucus were able to get one of theirs elected as Speaker, not only would they expect their Speaker to lead the shutdown of the government over Planned Parenthood funding, they would expect the Speaker to precede that by demanding a full repeal of Obamacare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Not so reasonable, eh?
And, to complete the shit sandwich, the Freedom Caucus would be fine with their Speaker denying the right to add amendments to Bills on the floor and killing Bills with majority House support. They would just want their Speaker to do these things to Bills with moderate and liberal support.
The Freedom Caucus is not made up of a bunch of honest, principled people, despite their attempts to market themselves in these ways.
Our view that less than 40 Republicans want to dictate their views to about 500 others is guided by everything they’re saying, dataguy, not what one of them puts forward to an NPR reporter to make these government wreckers appear more reasonable:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/10/07/023d8122-6d3c-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html
“…Wednesday’s installment of “Conversations with Conservatives,” a monthly luncheon sponsored by the Heritage Foundation (parent company of the House GOP caucus) and catered by Chick-Fil-A, the fast-food chain owned by religious conservatives. The 10 men on the dais, members of the Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the Tea Party Caucus and other conservative factions, might be considered the politburo of the new conservative order in the House.
“The marginalizing of conservatives that’s taken place over the last nine months is just not going to be tolerated anymore,” declared Rep. Andy Harris (Md.).
“We have an opportunity to completely change what’s happening,” announced Labrador.
To seize this “opportunity,” they presented the three contenders for the speakership — McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster — with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want — and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders’ claims that “we can’t shut down the government,” said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight — “even if we fail.”
Paul Singer of USA Today observed that the conservatives’ description of leadership is more like followership. “You’re asking for a speaker,” he said, who “follows your lead.”
They did not dispute this notion. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) said that “we want a process-focused speaker,” while Rep. John Fleming (La.) said the goal is to give “power to the individual members” so that the speaker no longer is “dictating the agenda.
“
They want the House to rip up bills which come from the Republican-majority Senate and throw them in the garbage.
These radicals are fine with flushing tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of GDP down the toilet in a government shutdown even if they ultimately fail to achieve their policy goals, as long as can show the constituents they have ginned up that they have “fought”.
Here’s the beauty: guess who they would blame in response to post-government-shutdown negative economic reports? Obama/Reid/Pelosi. Black and brown people. Immigrants in general. Dirty Fucking Hippies. The Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee.
Win-win?
These House Republicans are very dishonest people. Their principles, to the degree they have them, are anti-American, disrespectful of democratic principles, and hurtful to the interests of the middle and lower classes.
Here’s the document which details the 21 demands of the “Freedom Caucus”:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/09/3711011/this-document-reveals-why-the-house-of-represen
tatives-is-in-complete-chaos/
The Speaker candidate must agree they would use their power to shut down the government and severely damage the economy until the major legislative achievements of the Obama Administration are repealed and SS/Medi/Medi are gutted, or their Caucus will deny their votes to that candidate.
It’s all very reasonable.
Let’s all remember that Hillary is supportive of the Republican agenda. Or so some progressives claim.
I’m searching thru the Internet tubes for all her campaign statements, but I’m simply not finding the place where Hillary talks about shutting down the government until she gets a full repeal of Obamacare and strips Federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Maybe a reader can help us find those statements.
I know I’m dense about this stuff, but I still don’t get one of the basic ideas here.
Why would Republican representatives not want to to default on our debts and probably cause a global recession or even a global depression? (And the answer has to be formulated in terms of negative personal consequences for them, personally and negatively.)
I’d argue that it depends on how much money you think it takes to be rich.
Most of the grifter-subtype Republicans are relatively well-off, but of course want more money. They aren’t rich.
While economic depressions are essentially firesales of real assets such as land, equipment and licenses for the rich, economic depressions can seriously screw with your finances when you’re simply well-off and still hunting for real riches.
In essence, a depression really only helps the rich right as prices take a massive shit, and most of the grifter-subtype Republicans aren’t rich enough yet for it to be a firesale they can partake in.
And most would probably lose net worth, requiring them to suffer through more time in the public-service stage of their path towards acquiring great riches. Gross.
Republican Congressmembers are almost always heavily aligned with business interests and business leaders. Those interests and leaders would be mightily aggrieved if the government shut down, particularly over issues like raising the debt ceiling and Planned Parenthood funding, which the CoC and other business interests do not oppose.
The current Republican House caucus is increasingly bad for business, and business interests will join more progressive interests in taking out very-bad-for-business Republicans in upcoming elections if this continues. Their government revenue streams are as important or more important to business kings than their business and personal tax rates.
A current confounding variable is that Obama really, really wants his TPP passed. Probably needs more GOP votes for that than are required for an increase in the debt limit. So, at the moment the power resides among Republicans cool with the TPP but won’t go along with it if they don’t get their pound of flesh in the debt limit increase and for which publicly they not only don’t have to own but can also use their opposition to it in their election campaigns.
That’s why we’re not seeing Obama and the House leadership Democrats shining a larger spotlight on the GOP crazies. ala Truman and the DEM party running against what they labeled as the “do nothing Congress” in 1948. Not technically accurate because that GOP Congress was doing plenty — plenty of destructive crap.
I think that’s a bigger deal for him than the TPP.
GovExec from March:
I’ve seen no evidence thus far that he’s backing down on that.
I think he and the Democrats are staying relatively quiet in the press about the Teabagger implosion because they have their eye on the big picture. They know that a lot of things are coming to a head in the next few weeks. Ending the Sequester would be a big deal that would help the sensible Republicans too (though they may be afraid to see it that way at the moment).
He wants the TPP too, of course, but that has to be a much lower priority for him.
We’ll see what happens.
Cheers,
Scott.
We shall see. CR expires 12/11.
The debt limit is currently more pressing as Treasury reports that it will soon run out of cash. My understanding is that in 2013 budget and debt limit deadlines were the same.
The 2015 budget wasn’t actually completed until March of this year.
My take is that Obama will settle for lowering the caps for 2016 rather than shutting down the government because the caps weren’t removed.
Treasury.
The only reason why we haven’t defaulted already is that the Treasury has stopped investing in the G Fund for federal employees, they’ve stopped issuing various bonds, etc., etc. (See that link for various PDF letters that Lew has written over the months explaining what he had to do to prevent defaulting.)
Those bits of juggling of the books will be insufficient, and we’ll default (unless things change), between November 10th and 19th.
I don’t know what Obama will end up doing, but he seems pretty serious about not raising the DoD budget without also raising domestic funding.
Cheers,
Scott.
I really cannot get my head around Obama and these trade agreements. Not with the demonstrated bad actors that corporations have become.
The TPP is a horrible horrible bill, and must be defeated. Obama just lies blatantly and obviously about jobs for Americans. He says he wants them, and then works for complete shit like this TPP.
It’s 10x worse than NAFTA.
how can you possibly know that when the text hasn’t even been released yet?
Wikileaks has the final “Intellectual Property” language. It is bad enough and as expected. Other sections will no doubt follow. The full text will be released in Europe, probably before it is here.
https:/wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3
What proof do we have that is the final language even in that section? The President announced this week that the full text will be released for 30 days before Congress even can address it.
Maybe we should read the final language before jumping to conclusions.
Every leak has entirely supported my alarm. The only question is why Obama is throwing American workers under the bus. Of course, he has not done SHIT to help American workers in 6 years. The H-4 provision has allowed 100,000 H-1B wives to work, which will end up with 100,000 American workers out of work. H-1B visas are cheaper. He’s a total asshole about American workers.
He must have a huge payoff waiting after his term is finished.
again there’s no proof that those are the final documents or if they are accurate at all, secondly your comment about the President not helping workers is completely without merit, I’m not going to list all the items he’s done because you can look it up yourself and given the tone of your last post would dismiss any list I provided.
All I’m saying about the TPP is let’s wait to freak out until it’s released and if it’s as bad you think then fine but if it’s not then you should support it. Keeping in mind that no international agreement involving as many countries as the TPP does will be 100% in the US’s favor.
Seems consistent with his policies since he won the 2008 election. While it seemed expedient not to make too big a deal out of where a significant portion of Obama’s campaign dollars were coming from, particularly in light of the large number of small dollar value donors and that Clinton had her own and not too dissimilar corporate donor base, the truth won out over “hope and change.” IMO, DEM primary voters still made the better choice, but the differences were very slight and those differences had little to do with the differences in funding base of the two candidates. It really did come down to Clinton’s support of the IWR and Obama’s ambivalence about it (a luxury he had by not being in Congress at the time and forced to cast a vote; although it is noted that Sen Durbin voted against it).
It’s actually much more about isolating or counterbalancing China than anything else. For Obama, it’s a foreign policy, not an economic one.
Not much daylight between FP and EP. Yet, somehow all those swell FP moves that are supposed to be good for the economy as well have made us economically poorer and less respected in the world.
Do you think a Clinton could manage the snow job Obama has managed on this? I don’t.
Why not? Bill managed more and bigger snow jobs during his tenure. Mostly while ordinary partisan DEMs were defending him on charges of another type of job.
Once bitten, twice shy?
Doesn’t feel quite right for me.
In some instances: Once bitten and I’m out of here.
In others, have to evaluate the seriousness of the bite and possible extenuating circumstances to determine if the effort to maintain “twice shy” is worth it. Everybody makes mistakes, but if one mistake leads others not to trust again as they once did, it’s not helpful to the person that made the first mistake.
With politicians, it comes down to a pattern of decisions and acts, and ultimately, given our narrow/limited choices which easily anticipated future bites will hurt less.
NAFTA was the original snow job. Clinton promised jobs, and he got jobs, for Mexicans, Canadians, Chinese, but lost millions of jobs for Americans. Many small towns, like Galesburg IL (used to have a huge dishwasher factory), lost their entire economic heart when NAFTA passed.
TPP is worse.
Yes, this is why I think a Clinton would have a harder time passing another questionable trade bill than Obama.
You say this like it’s a bad thing.
Think of all the banks, and banksters, and other parasites of late-stage finance capitalism that would go down in the smash.
Think of the the better modes of production that lay on the other side. The death of consumerism, and production-for-profit. The money-spigot for the merchants of death turned off.
It would be glorious.
I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed….
You serious about this?
A hell of a lot of small people would get destroyed. I have saved a modest sum for retirement. I am 63. If there was a huge depression, I would get wiped out, and the effort and care I put into the accumulation of this sum would have been wasted.
Please don’t wish for this. Terrible idea.
Sorry. No revolution without martyrs.
That’s so easy to say when you’re not one of the millions who would starve.
you can’t make an omelette without some people starving.
Look, everything proposed here short of revolution, in the form of possible legislation, or executive action has people on this board instantly complaining that they’re only half-measures, or don’t fix the underlying problems and root causes, or are purely symptomatic treatments of the underlying disease, or further empower the same people who created the mess.
What do we in fact want?
Seizing the means of production. And then having the means of production seized from us by some other more pure group.
And so on.
With Davis, you need the most newiest snark meter on the market. I enjoy his comments here and on MoJo.
newiest, even if it’s spell check spawn of satin’s word, is a great word. and also too, imo snark doesn’t quite capture Davis’s gift – Davis X is sort of Stephen Colbert through a 20’s/ 30’s old left lens
>>You serious about this?
if you find yourself asking Davis this question, the answer is no.
Here I am serious.
Why aren’t there 10-12 active US left-wing revolutionary/resistance movements active in this country? With homegrown Tupamaros, or Spartakusbunde, or whatever they’d be called here?
Is it possible that:
The status quo serves a lot of people fairly well — most of whom think “Hell, I’m one of those peopel. How’s about we don’t blow it up.”?
Piecemeal, non-programmatic, incremental changes to how things get done are actuallythe way forward?
Wholesale changes to existing schemes of property rights aren’t doomed to failure just because the masses have been trained to oppose them by corporate media?
The international order may not automatically become self-improving as soon as the U.S. rejects the role of hegemon?.
This is great. I never saw the problem spelled out so clearly.
But for the time being, all it means is that Boehner stays on. The Wingnuts hate his guts, what else is new? The Republican establishment absolutely wants him there. It’s been like this for a long time already. The only difference is that he’d like to retire, and he can’t even do that.
It is jolly well what the founders did in practice after the machinery got going. The bad habits came from long experience in colonial assemblies, which varied in how power was locally seized through parliamentary and extra-parliamentary maneuvers. When there was not a two-party system, there was effectively a four-party system that ground things to a halt. The modern conservative movement’s push for ideological purity came out of the four-party stalemate of the Eisenhower administration. The Democrats were were splitting along Democrat (FDR-Farmer/Labor)-Dixiecrat lines. The Republicans were splitting along “liberal” (big business-regulatory control of new entry) – “modern conservative” (deregulation) lines.
What forces the two-party (with the Speaker/against the Speaker) division are the formal rules of the House and the informal traditions and assumptions of privilege that every freshman member gets socialized into. The Freedom Caucus is calling bullshit on those informal levers of power and have just enough solidarity to use the Hastert rule to gridlock the House and thus the Congress. They lack the power to move anything at all forward, nor the negotiating skills to get a compromise agreement on anything at all suitable to their constituents. And all we know about them is that they are a minimum 30 members of the House (exact monkey wrench size) and still less than 218 memmbers, likely substantially less. And that they are aligned with Mike Lee and Ted Cruz in the Senate.
It is possible to envision a House operation that does not degenerate into persistent two-party or four-party states of operation. It is not possible to envision how that emerges out of the current rules of operation absent a complete collapse, acknowledgement of the rules of operation issue as the problem, and creating a more fluid and less controllable set of rules.