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?
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?
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.