I think we've learned a lot in the last three days to see that there is more than posturing going on here.
1. We've learned that McCarthy's opposition to the Omnibus was nothing more than public posturing after he had lent his support to the sordid enterprise. He is a purely transactional politician and his word on issues mean nothing. That's true of a lot of politicians, but McCarthy personifies the type.
2. We know the key refuseniks (Price, Good, Norman among them) are very serious about spending and think that a return to committee-based budgeting (regular order) and an end to omnibus bills delivered at the 11th hour is key to getting spending under control.
3. Regular order would also help prioritize spending by creating a focused debate on spending within each agency of the government.
2-3 are more than a process matter.s It goes to the heart of the role of the legislator in the House, and how the power of the purse is exercised.
Right now, the power of the purse is exercised by two individuals in consultation with the President. They then use their whips to cram down budget bills on the reps elected by the us. Reps aren't offered the ability to propose amendments and the committees that used to vet spending bills department by department haven't really done that job since Obama and Pelosi took over Washington in 2009. The current process has more in common with the old Soviet politburo than it does with a republic.
Now we see that of all the concessions that McCarthy has made to the refuseniks, regular order is one concession he won't make. What does that tell us?
Defenders of the centralized process say that it's faster and easier, but when you have $30T of debt and double-digit inflation, faster and easier is exactly the problem.
The fed can increase interest rates all it wants; those of us who remember the last inflationary period know from experience that nothing will change until spending, or at least the growth of spending, is reduced.
That's not going to happen until a House Speaker is willing to use the power of the purse.
I think if any of the 20 refuseniks believed that McCarthy would do that, it would end this standoff.
If McCarthy won't, then what's the point of voting for a party that is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I think one decisive point in favor of voting for the GOP is to prevent Democrats from enacting legislation that will make matters worse than they are.
I agree that some of the 20 refuseniks, maybe even most of them, are serious about curbing spending and about making significant changes in the way the House does business. As I said, forcing changes is that's the best argument for blocking McCarthy, and it won't bother me if he is blocked in the end.
At the same time, I believe that many of the conservative members who are voting for McCarthy are also serious about curbing spending and would like to see changes in the operation of the House. But these members recognize that with the GOP's razor thin majority, significant change isn't in the cards right now.
The resistance to McCarthy has caused him to make concessions, but I don't see the ones he's agreed to, or is rumored to be willing to adopt, making much difference. And some of them seem silly.
For example, McCarthy reportedly is willing to agree to an arrangement whereby it would take only one member of his caucus to force a vote on whether to topple the Speaker. I don't see the point, other than to enable some of the posturers to waste everyone's time and get to appear on Fox News.
Paul: I've read that the rule to vacate is a reversion to the pre-Pelosi rule, and I don't t think it's really that consequential either. Given what's happened, whoever occupies the Speaker role will know where the boundaries are. But that concession does signify the distrust and bad blood that exists inside the republican caucus.
Ironically, it is the razor thin majority that gave the HFC refuseniks leverage to drive the change. I think they saw this as the time to press the process issues to change the way the House works.
The one concession that would make the most difference is the issue of regular order, which seems to. making some progress. Politico reported, "House Freedom Caucus members could force a significant change to the budget process on the rules committee by requiring individual votes on the 12 appropriations bills that make up what’s known as the “omnibus package,” while McCarthy has also agreed to conduct a separate approval process for earmarks."
That would give committees involved in the budgeting process the power to react to issues turned up in oversight, and bring clarity and accountability to how taxpayer money is being spent, as well as more leverage to block bad spending without blocking good spending.
What accountability exists today? There seems to be no linkage between oversight and budgeting. Rather, the hearings seem to be TV drama with with effect of punishing political opponents with bad press and legal fees (at least when democrats run the show).
One interesting concession: keeping McCarthy's PAC money out of primaries for open seats, which involved the Club for Growth. Another sign of bad blood here with McCarthy from the role of leadership in the last couple of election cycles; if only we could force a similar concession with McConnell.
I think this fracas has been brewing since the Tea Party, which itself was a reaction to the first cram-down of the last 15 years (Obamacare).
I will never forget two things about that period: 1) Obama's declaration when Obamacare passed that "this is what change looks like" and 2) the look of utter dread on Boehner's and McConnell's faces when they stepped onto the Capitol veranda and first saw the thousands of Tea Partiers cheering them for opposing Obamacare. It was as if they were thinking, "What have we done here?" They didn't seem to know what to say to the crowd.
It was at that moment I realized the divide that exists between republican leadership and republican voters. That divide puts enormous pressure on the reps themselves, who must live with it on a day-to-day basis, and it seems to have come to a head.
Since then, voting republican has largely been about blocking legislation from the progressive left. The defensive side has been on the field most of that time. On budget our offense has had a couple of good drives but mostly is forced to punt. The defense is getting impatient witih QB's who throw interceptions and running backs who fumble downfield.
Those outside of the Beltway chuckle when they hear Beltway media and political types complaining about "chaos in the House." What has Pelosi's orderly status quo produced? An open border, 30T of debt and runaway spending, double-digit inflation and rising interest rates, 47 genders and government-sanctioned castration of children. That's chaos.
Stepping back from all of this, it's possible the concessions, as well as the airing of grievances, could result in a more effective House. Chip Roy said today that they've spent more time in that room together in the last three days than they have the last three years. There is something wonderful about seeing our reps physically present on the House floor, debating and dealing, rather than making speeches to TV camera in an empty chamber.
I get the sense that we're witnessing something important here. Let's just hope it's for the better.
I know the rule to vacate existed pre-Pelosi, but I fear it will be abused in the current environment. If it were otherwise, I doubt McCarthy would be pressed on this.
I may be mistaken, but I think McCarthy previously agreed to a rule whereby five members of the caucus could trigger a vote. That should be good enough unless the goal is grandstanding.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I don't see how (to use your analogy) the conservatives score a touchdown on budgeting and the debt, or even sustain a drive, when the GOP margin is this thin, when there only 20 GOP representatives who are opposing McCarthy, and when the Democrats run the Senate and the White House.
The move-to-vacate, I think, is just an insurance policy and a way of representing their distrust of McCarthy in particular. Makes it easier to call for a vote. But in the end, as Gingrich pointed out, you can move to vacate, but you either have the votes or you don't.
The big win would be a process that allows for deliberation and public visibility in developing the nation's budget. That means swinging the pendulum back to regular order committee work and away from the centralized 5-person cabal that has been producing last-minute budgets and CR's and giving reps 24 hours to read them for the last 15 years.
It's a great process for politicians and lobbyists because it allows them to hide their deals and vote-swaps, and avoids making cuts in one area to get additional funding in another. It's a big black box and nobody can be held accountable for decisions made in the process.
With each committee responsible for a part of the federal budget, vote-trading and funding changes require negotiation between the committee leaders and that means we can see who's trading what for what and with whom. That's the way it used to work.
The regular order process allows for deal-making and trading to occur in public, and allows for committee members to participate. That means more work and debate, but that's what we elect them to do.
That's what Perry and Norman have been talking about. Hell, even John Boehner used to insist on this though he didn't follow through. Today's events imply that it may be heading back in that direction.
BTW, I found a pretty decent Congressional Research Service white paper about the pros and cons of centralized v regular order. It is timely.
David: Perhaps a better example than the treatment of the Tea Party, is the GOP congressional leadership’s use of the PPACA (Obamacare). Remember the 2016 congressional campaigns? With all the attention on Trump it’s easy to forget “Repeal and Replace.” Ohh…yes, the promises. Then to the GOP national leadership’s great shock, they won it all. They had control of both houses and a Republican President. Time to make good on those promises! But it became clear in very short order that they had no plan at all because they never expected Trump to win and to have to make good on those promises. “Repeal and Replace” was boob bait for the bubbas, nothing more, and perhaps the best example of the contempt in which the GOP base is held by the McConnells and McCarthys of the party. The fate of the Tea Party is a good example, but look no further than the fate of “Repeal and Replace” in those first two years of Trump’s presidency for a crystallization of all that came before.
Morrissey seems to think that Jefferies would settle for a deal that leaves Pelosi’s MTV in place. Why? Wouldn’t that make an MTV more difficult, and wouldn’t that in turn make it more easy for McCarthy to appease the Freedom Caucus at Democrats’ expense? If so, it won’t happen because in making any deal with the Democrats, McCarthy will confirm the Freedom Caucus’ judgment, at least in their minds, making a betrayal of Democrats all the more neccessary. Democrats will see this.
I think we've learned a lot in the last three days to see that there is more than posturing going on here.
1. We've learned that McCarthy's opposition to the Omnibus was nothing more than public posturing after he had lent his support to the sordid enterprise. He is a purely transactional politician and his word on issues mean nothing. That's true of a lot of politicians, but McCarthy personifies the type.
2. We know the key refuseniks (Price, Good, Norman among them) are very serious about spending and think that a return to committee-based budgeting (regular order) and an end to omnibus bills delivered at the 11th hour is key to getting spending under control.
3. Regular order would also help prioritize spending by creating a focused debate on spending within each agency of the government.
2-3 are more than a process matter.s It goes to the heart of the role of the legislator in the House, and how the power of the purse is exercised.
Right now, the power of the purse is exercised by two individuals in consultation with the President. They then use their whips to cram down budget bills on the reps elected by the us. Reps aren't offered the ability to propose amendments and the committees that used to vet spending bills department by department haven't really done that job since Obama and Pelosi took over Washington in 2009. The current process has more in common with the old Soviet politburo than it does with a republic.
Now we see that of all the concessions that McCarthy has made to the refuseniks, regular order is one concession he won't make. What does that tell us?
Defenders of the centralized process say that it's faster and easier, but when you have $30T of debt and double-digit inflation, faster and easier is exactly the problem.
The fed can increase interest rates all it wants; those of us who remember the last inflationary period know from experience that nothing will change until spending, or at least the growth of spending, is reduced.
That's not going to happen until a House Speaker is willing to use the power of the purse.
I think if any of the 20 refuseniks believed that McCarthy would do that, it would end this standoff.
If McCarthy won't, then what's the point of voting for a party that is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I think one decisive point in favor of voting for the GOP is to prevent Democrats from enacting legislation that will make matters worse than they are.
I agree that some of the 20 refuseniks, maybe even most of them, are serious about curbing spending and about making significant changes in the way the House does business. As I said, forcing changes is that's the best argument for blocking McCarthy, and it won't bother me if he is blocked in the end.
At the same time, I believe that many of the conservative members who are voting for McCarthy are also serious about curbing spending and would like to see changes in the operation of the House. But these members recognize that with the GOP's razor thin majority, significant change isn't in the cards right now.
The resistance to McCarthy has caused him to make concessions, but I don't see the ones he's agreed to, or is rumored to be willing to adopt, making much difference. And some of them seem silly.
For example, McCarthy reportedly is willing to agree to an arrangement whereby it would take only one member of his caucus to force a vote on whether to topple the Speaker. I don't see the point, other than to enable some of the posturers to waste everyone's time and get to appear on Fox News.
Paul: I've read that the rule to vacate is a reversion to the pre-Pelosi rule, and I don't t think it's really that consequential either. Given what's happened, whoever occupies the Speaker role will know where the boundaries are. But that concession does signify the distrust and bad blood that exists inside the republican caucus.
Ironically, it is the razor thin majority that gave the HFC refuseniks leverage to drive the change. I think they saw this as the time to press the process issues to change the way the House works.
The one concession that would make the most difference is the issue of regular order, which seems to. making some progress. Politico reported, "House Freedom Caucus members could force a significant change to the budget process on the rules committee by requiring individual votes on the 12 appropriations bills that make up what’s known as the “omnibus package,” while McCarthy has also agreed to conduct a separate approval process for earmarks."
That would give committees involved in the budgeting process the power to react to issues turned up in oversight, and bring clarity and accountability to how taxpayer money is being spent, as well as more leverage to block bad spending without blocking good spending.
What accountability exists today? There seems to be no linkage between oversight and budgeting. Rather, the hearings seem to be TV drama with with effect of punishing political opponents with bad press and legal fees (at least when democrats run the show).
One interesting concession: keeping McCarthy's PAC money out of primaries for open seats, which involved the Club for Growth. Another sign of bad blood here with McCarthy from the role of leadership in the last couple of election cycles; if only we could force a similar concession with McConnell.
I think this fracas has been brewing since the Tea Party, which itself was a reaction to the first cram-down of the last 15 years (Obamacare).
I will never forget two things about that period: 1) Obama's declaration when Obamacare passed that "this is what change looks like" and 2) the look of utter dread on Boehner's and McConnell's faces when they stepped onto the Capitol veranda and first saw the thousands of Tea Partiers cheering them for opposing Obamacare. It was as if they were thinking, "What have we done here?" They didn't seem to know what to say to the crowd.
It was at that moment I realized the divide that exists between republican leadership and republican voters. That divide puts enormous pressure on the reps themselves, who must live with it on a day-to-day basis, and it seems to have come to a head.
Since then, voting republican has largely been about blocking legislation from the progressive left. The defensive side has been on the field most of that time. On budget our offense has had a couple of good drives but mostly is forced to punt. The defense is getting impatient witih QB's who throw interceptions and running backs who fumble downfield.
Those outside of the Beltway chuckle when they hear Beltway media and political types complaining about "chaos in the House." What has Pelosi's orderly status quo produced? An open border, 30T of debt and runaway spending, double-digit inflation and rising interest rates, 47 genders and government-sanctioned castration of children. That's chaos.
Stepping back from all of this, it's possible the concessions, as well as the airing of grievances, could result in a more effective House. Chip Roy said today that they've spent more time in that room together in the last three days than they have the last three years. There is something wonderful about seeing our reps physically present on the House floor, debating and dealing, rather than making speeches to TV camera in an empty chamber.
I get the sense that we're witnessing something important here. Let's just hope it's for the better.
Thanks, again. These are very helpful insights.
I know the rule to vacate existed pre-Pelosi, but I fear it will be abused in the current environment. If it were otherwise, I doubt McCarthy would be pressed on this.
I may be mistaken, but I think McCarthy previously agreed to a rule whereby five members of the caucus could trigger a vote. That should be good enough unless the goal is grandstanding.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I don't see how (to use your analogy) the conservatives score a touchdown on budgeting and the debt, or even sustain a drive, when the GOP margin is this thin, when there only 20 GOP representatives who are opposing McCarthy, and when the Democrats run the Senate and the White House.
Paul:
The move-to-vacate, I think, is just an insurance policy and a way of representing their distrust of McCarthy in particular. Makes it easier to call for a vote. But in the end, as Gingrich pointed out, you can move to vacate, but you either have the votes or you don't.
The big win would be a process that allows for deliberation and public visibility in developing the nation's budget. That means swinging the pendulum back to regular order committee work and away from the centralized 5-person cabal that has been producing last-minute budgets and CR's and giving reps 24 hours to read them for the last 15 years.
It's a great process for politicians and lobbyists because it allows them to hide their deals and vote-swaps, and avoids making cuts in one area to get additional funding in another. It's a big black box and nobody can be held accountable for decisions made in the process.
With each committee responsible for a part of the federal budget, vote-trading and funding changes require negotiation between the committee leaders and that means we can see who's trading what for what and with whom. That's the way it used to work.
The regular order process allows for deal-making and trading to occur in public, and allows for committee members to participate. That means more work and debate, but that's what we elect them to do.
That's what Perry and Norman have been talking about. Hell, even John Boehner used to insist on this though he didn't follow through. Today's events imply that it may be heading back in that direction.
BTW, I found a pretty decent Congressional Research Service white paper about the pros and cons of centralized v regular order. It is timely.
https://s gp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46597.pdf
David: Perhaps a better example than the treatment of the Tea Party, is the GOP congressional leadership’s use of the PPACA (Obamacare). Remember the 2016 congressional campaigns? With all the attention on Trump it’s easy to forget “Repeal and Replace.” Ohh…yes, the promises. Then to the GOP national leadership’s great shock, they won it all. They had control of both houses and a Republican President. Time to make good on those promises! But it became clear in very short order that they had no plan at all because they never expected Trump to win and to have to make good on those promises. “Repeal and Replace” was boob bait for the bubbas, nothing more, and perhaps the best example of the contempt in which the GOP base is held by the McConnells and McCarthys of the party. The fate of the Tea Party is a good example, but look no further than the fate of “Repeal and Replace” in those first two years of Trump’s presidency for a crystallization of all that came before.
Very true.
Morrissey seems to think that Jefferies would settle for a deal that leaves Pelosi’s MTV in place. Why? Wouldn’t that make an MTV more difficult, and wouldn’t that in turn make it more easy for McCarthy to appease the Freedom Caucus at Democrats’ expense? If so, it won’t happen because in making any deal with the Democrats, McCarthy will confirm the Freedom Caucus’ judgment, at least in their minds, making a betrayal of Democrats all the more neccessary. Democrats will see this.