jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on May 26, 2023 15:28:33 GMT
In the expectant aura of a pending deal that could be rejected by both hard right Republicans and progressive Democrats and possibly unable to be approved by the House, the Biden Administration has unilaterally disarmed itself and had a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (not Biden, or even Janet Yellen) declare that the 14th Amendment will not be used to deal with the potential crisis. I'm not sure if it's negotiating incompetence or lack of courage operating here But it's very disappointing. Josh Marshall at TPM says the potential deal would be, on balance, favorable for Dems. Looks like they better pass it whatever it provides.
|
|
pnwguy
Associate Professor
Posts: 1,447
|
Post by pnwguy on May 26, 2023 19:25:35 GMT
In the expectant aura of a pending deal that could be rejected by both hard right Republicans and progressive Democrats and possibly unable to be approved by the House, the Biden Administration has unilaterally disarmed itself and had a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (not Biden, or even Janet Yellen) declare that the 14th Amendment will not be used to deal with the potential crisis. I'm not sure if it's negotiating incompetence or lack of courage operating here But it's very disappointing. Josh Marshall at TPM says the potential deal would be, on balance, favorable for Dems. Looks like they better pass it whatever it provides. Even if the GOP terrorist caucus got every program cut they wanted, their incentive is still to burn it all down. Chaos and collapse is better for the party not holding the White House. Most people have little political understander of where the fault lies, and half of those who do will just vomit the RW Angertainment talking points. "It was SO much better under Dear Leader Trump" |
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on May 27, 2023 14:32:26 GMT
The 14th Amendment solution sounds great until I think about the current composition of the US Supreme Court which just decided that building on swamp land is okay if it means taking power away from the regulatory agencies. The split of opinions on that case just showed how disorganized the right wing on the Court is...but they somehow manage to get 5 votes to carry out their destructive intent.
I don't see any good solutions to the debt ceiling nonsense beyond entering a time tunnel to look for a time when a reasonable Congress existed and abolishing it then. I'm not sure when that would be...somewhere in the 20th Century but well before the Reagan years. There is currently a segment of the House that either doesn't understand how the US underpins the global financial structure or simply doesn't care because blowing up stuff is all they want to do. And certainly those who only watch Fox or certain social media outlets will never even hear about the global parts. They are primed to return to fictional libertarianism and isolationism in all things.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on May 27, 2023 14:53:25 GMT
It's become hypothetical due to Biden's rejecting it as even a threat. Supreme Court involvement would have been tricky at best. Who would have standing to challenge it? Why would the President have to obey an adverse court order? See Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. It's all a thought experiment at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on May 27, 2023 17:27:21 GMT
It's become hypothetical due to Biden's rejecting it as even a threat. Supreme Court involvement would have been tricky at best. Who would have standing to challenge it? Why would the President have to obey an adverse court order? See Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. It's all a thought experiment at this point. Agreed. I also think there is a political calculation here...Biden is stealing tax payer money by refusing to honor the debt ceiling and refusing to knuckle under to demands. That sort of campaign statement feeds into Democrats spend too much money that can appeal to those few mostly uniformed voters who might be willing to stay at home in the general election unless motivated by anger at a candidate. |
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on May 28, 2023 3:07:06 GMT
Well, they've announced a deal "in principle". Let's see if they can sell it to their respective caucuses sufficiently to get it passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 28, 2023 13:09:14 GMT
From the outlines I've seen, I think it will pass but it will take Democrats to vote for it, which will be there most likely. It will be interesting to see how many GOP votes it can garner though because I wonder if it will be even a majority of them. No doubt we will get another entertaining several days as the internal internecine GOP war will likely heat up quite a bit.
|
|
pnwguy
Associate Professor
Posts: 1,447
|
Post by pnwguy on May 28, 2023 16:50:34 GMT
From the outlines I've seen, I think it will pass but it will take Democrats to vote for it, which will be there most likely. It will be interesting to see how many GOP votes it can garner though because I wonder if it will be even a majority of them. No doubt we will get another entertaining several days as the internal internecine GOP war will likely heat up quite a bit. If any Democrats vote for it, then the Terrorist Caucus will be against it. The Dems will need 20+ votes. |
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 28, 2023 17:33:11 GMT
Oh, I think it will be many more than that. Many GOPers will not want to vote for it because they will not want to piss off the base. The emerging details look pretty good for Dems, so my thinking is that part of the deal may have been to supply enough votes from Dems to allow a lot of GOPers to vote against it.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on May 28, 2023 20:26:01 GMT
What would dems accomplish by voting against it? Biden would likely be blamed for the ensuing chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on May 29, 2023 21:26:13 GMT
What would dems accomplish by voting against it? Biden would likely be blamed for the ensuing chaos. I think they'll have to be the grown ups in the room...the usual stance they get forced into taking by the bomb throwers on the other side. I don't think it gets them any votes for re-election because to the extent that not blowing up the global financial system is understood by some voters, people will have forgotten the whole thing by next spring when the primaries begin. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on May 30, 2023 18:13:57 GMT
The hard liners (there might be another way to describe them) are planning to block the "deal" in Rules Committee so that it won't get to the floor. That last statement is quite something...it's why I am so pessimistic about the future. Given that Yellen said June 5 is the drop dead date there isn't much time for some potential amendments to pass. Blowing up the financial system for the whole world is in the best interest of the country?
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on May 30, 2023 18:35:53 GMT
If they succeed, they may force Biden to use the 14th Amendment whether he wants to or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 30, 2023 19:01:01 GMT
McCarthy finds himself in Boehner's shoes. He will undoubtedly require votes from the Democrats to pass this bill. That was the undercurrent that eventually led to the vortex that drove Boehner from congress. To the base, the only outcome that matters is the one that sticks a thumb in the eyes of Democrats. This isn't that.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on May 30, 2023 19:09:16 GMT
McCarthy finds himself in Boehner's shoes. He will undoubtedly require votes from the Democrats to pass this bill. That was the undercurrent that eventually led to the vortex that drove Boehner from congress. To the base, the only outcome that matters is the one that sticks a thumb in the eyes of Democrats. This isn't that. Now McCarthy knows why Boehner sang "zippity doo dah" as he left and why Paul Ryan got the heck out of dodge so fast. Being Speaker of a Republican dominated House right now is not a job anyone wants. I'm waiting for Jim Jordan or MTG to throw their hats into the ring knowing they are driving McCarthy out. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on May 30, 2023 23:29:18 GMT
I'm sure McCarthy didn't mean to say child, but maybe this was a Freudian slip...
And I just hate seeing a 10 year old sitting on a couch playing video games instead of working in a chicken processing plant!
|
|
AnBr
Associate Professor
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by AnBr on May 30, 2023 23:51:54 GMT
Now McCarthy knows why Boehner sang "zippity doo dah" as he left and why Paul Ryan got the heck out of dodge so fast. Being Speaker of a Republican dominated House right now is not a job anyone wants. I'm waiting for Jim Jordan or MTG to throw their hats into the ring knowing they are driving McCarthy out.  |
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 31, 2023 10:27:13 GMT
What would dems accomplish by voting against it? Biden would likely be blamed for the ensuing chaos. That's a question that involves more inside baseball knowledge than I possess for sure. In the Rules committee vote to move the deal to the floor for a full house vote last night, it passed 7-6. All four Democrats on the committee however, voted against it, joining up with Chip Roy and Ralph Norman, two of the most extreme Republicans. It was obviously some sort of political calculation but to what end I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 31, 2023 12:24:30 GMT
My understanding, which could easily be wrong, is they need around 110 Republicans (i.e., a majority of Republicans) to vote for it or it will trigger the motion to vacate, which of course McCarthy does not want, so I assume he knows he has at least that many votes from the Republicans. Knowing that then, it gives Democrats a lot of leeway to allow their members to vote in a way that I also assume they calculate will be best for them in their home district while also giving the other half of the Republicans the ability to do the same. It is going to pass, I also assume, but I do not have an idea what the final tally from each side will be. I think it is far from a foregone conclusion that all Democrats will vote for it, but I do think it is a foregone conclusion that ENOUGH of them will vote for it to pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 31, 2023 13:02:58 GMT
House minority leader says McCarthy has promised to deliver 150 votes.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on May 31, 2023 13:21:56 GMT
It's wheels within wheels on how any particular representative votes. For example, AOC says she'll vote against. Query if she would do that if she thought her vote was needed to pass the agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 31, 2023 13:33:19 GMT
No, she would vote for it, just as as many Dems as was needed on the rules committee would have. I think the overarching goal for Dems here is to give their members maximum flexibility while also putting as many Republicans into a tough voting bind as they possibly can. I think--as Boehner knew and what was ultimately responsible for his retirement--that these kinds of extremist postures are net negatives by a wide margin. Most of the things that republicans demanded in this bill actually cost more than they saved according to the CBO.
ETA: It's a net negative to achieving POLICY goals. Of course, a certain segment of Republicans have no achievable policy goals, so it's not a negative to them.
Another ETA: Many of the conservative 'vote scoring' institutions have already promised to add this vote to their score, so yet another benefit for Dems.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jun 1, 2023 11:30:38 GMT
Passes with 149 Republican votes (just shy of the promised 150) and more Democratic votes (165) than Republican ones. There is undoubtedly going to be backlash for McCarthy. 3 of the last 4 GOP house speakers resigned the position, so I guess we will see how much McCarthy can take.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on Jun 1, 2023 16:43:56 GMT
Passes with 149 Republican votes (just shy of the promised 150) and more Democratic votes (165) than Republican ones. There is undoubtedly going to be backlash for McCarthy. 3 of the last 4 GOP house speakers resigned the position, so I guess we will see how much McCarthy can take. I note that Jim Jordan and MTG voted for this. I wonder if that was part of the deal that gave McCarthy his speakership (they both supported him), MTG some committees to pontificate from, and Jordan his conspiracy theory platform (the weaponization of government committee). |
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Jun 1, 2023 19:02:51 GMT
My representative, Jan Schakowsky, confirmed today that she would have voted for the deal had her vote been needed. Since it wasn't she used the opportunity to protest the damage to older people on food stamps and the "easy" permitting of polluting pipelines.
|
|
