Speaker of the House nominations

DaveSchmidt said:

According to what I heard from a night editor there, they were scrambling after already having extended the deadline an hour beyond what the presses normally require to get the final editions on the trucks in time and, missing even that deadline, couldn’t put off hitting the newsroom’s big red “Print” button a minute longer.

Yes, inconvenient those deliveries.

They couldn't afford to miss or skip scheduled newsstand, home, hotel deliveries while waiting for the House to make up its mind.

I think the dysfunction and absurdity on display by the Republican party here largely goes without saying, so I won't. But from the other side, there's a couple of trends I'm finding irksome (generally in news and opinion articles)

One, I'm seeing fretting about what this presages for a possible crises around the debt ceiling. To which my feeling is, maybe Democrats should have done something about this sometime between the results of the midterms and the ending of the previous legislative session, when they still had the ability to act?

Two, I've been seeing a few articles (eg. Dahlia Lithwick, Dana Milbank) arguing that this is some kind of version of Jan 6, which I strongly disagree with. There's a real, and important, difference between a mob attempting to overthrow an election by violence, and a legitimately elected majority deciding to pursue stupid and destructive acts. Legitimately elected lawmakers doing terrible things I strongly disagree with is not the same thing as an insurrection, regardless of how stupid and destructive I find those lawmakers actions.

PVW said:

One, I'm seeing fretting about what this presages for a possible crises around the debt ceiling. To which my feeling is, maybe Democrats should have done something about this sometime between the results of the midterms and the ending of the previous legislative session, when they still had the ability to act?

They should have. Should we get a debt limit debacle we'll have Democrats finger pointing the Republicans while conveniently forgetting its their inaction that helps to create it.

Democrats could also have done other stuff. They had the opportunity to enroll Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states, change the House Apportionment formula (the last change was done to favor low population states) states and expand the size of the house.

Following the 2010 census, our current House Apportionment formula gave CA 53, NY 27, NJ 12 representatives. Using a previous apportionment CA would have had 55, NY 28, NJ 13. Which may have helped but on the hand a red state like Ohio would also have gained a seat. 

Oddly enough there are a couple of concessions to the block that I actually agree with.  First, demanding 12 separate spending bills and three days to read them as opposed to a massive omnibus spending bill full of pork presented without any time for review. Second, a bill about term limits.  Much of the rest is just a power grab.

Term limits may only be imposed by constitutional amendment.  If they don't know that, they don't deserve to be in Congress.

They want to try to get it rolling.  There is nothing at all wrong with discussing it.  It also causes no harm, so why not?

DanDietrich said:

Oddly enough there are a couple of concessions to the block that I actually agree with.  First, demanding 12 separate spending bills and three days to read them as opposed to a massive omnibus spending bill full of pork presented without any time for review. Second, a bill about term limits.  Much of the rest is just a power grab.

Pork is good. It's how money comes back to the districts.

Term limits are bad. It's how power accumulates even more to lobbyists and corporations.

And given the limitations of Dem power in the last Congress, exactly what do people think the Dems could have done re the debt limit?

nohero said:

That last piece of theater was pathetic. Gaetz and Boebert treated McCarthy like a plaything, making him beg and pulling that last minute surprise.

Doesn't bode well for sanity in the House.

McCarthy may just have the last laugh.

For example, a big deal is made of the proposed rule that just one member can challenge the seat of the speaker.

So what? McCarthy is speaker and remains so until another one is selected. Gaetz and ilk can challenge to their hearts content. Because a speaker is seated a challenge does not prevent the House from functioning under its current speaker and the challenge may not even be a priority that preempts other business. Good luck getting a majority of Republicans to vote passage of the challenge.

The only way a speaker challenge would succeed if all the Democrats joined the challenge dissidents and if there are enough dissidents and Democrats to enable a House majority.

If anything that new challenge rule may strengthen the Democrats hand. Suppose there were challenges that failed and now its time for the debt ceiling increase. Jeffries tells McCarthy "we need to fix the debut ceiling, help us or next challenge we'll vote with the challengers." The help can under table with McCarthy publicly against increasing the ceiling while arranging for enough "moderate" Republicans to get that ceiling raised.

Re term limits, elected officials overstaying their welcome is a problem, but the solution ought to be that they get voted out. If that's not happening, it's because there are too many barriers to effectively challenging incumbents. One big one is money -- it costs too much to run for office, discouraging challengers, and incumbents of governing. Term limits don't solve any of these problems.

Term limits do sort of deal with some of the problems you mention. In the term limit term, the incumbent doesn't have to raise money so they're free to govern. Challengers are obviously encouraged since the incumbent won't be running.

That's not enough to make term limits a good idea though.

Term limit often cause politicians to attempt in bettering their position. 

Such as promoting from councilman to mayor or state cabinet member or to a gig in industry or Fox airhead. 

It requires being "nice" to the lobbyists and other stakeholders who can be of use towards their new endeavor.

The real concern should be campaign finance, not term limits. 

nohero said:

The real concern should be campaign finance, not term limits. 

How will that solve anything?

Suppose we enact a law disallowing political donations or severely limiting them. Instead use public funding to equitably fund campaigns.

That won't solve the problem. We have the 1st Amendment right to express support or opposition to any candidate. Which means if I or the group I belong to want to take out adverts in support or opposition, I can't be stopped. Also, media outlets like Fox have the right to express their opinions. 

It means that no matter the campaign finance laws, politicians will still be doing the bidding whoever has the loudest voice.

drummerboy said:

Term limits do sort of deal with some of the problems you mention. In the term limit term, the incumbent doesn't have to raise money so they're free to govern. Challengers are obviously encouraged since the incumbent won't be running.

That's not enough to make term limits a good idea though.

You're right -- the way my comment was written, obviously term limits would mean that an incumbent couldn't simply keep on running and taking advantage of their incumbency. But until they hit their term limit, they'd still have to be fundraising for their next election. And if I were to reframe my comment about the desirability of a more diverse (in the full sense of that word) set of candidates running for office, then I don't think term limits actually help as, even though a specific individual would be term-limited, actual races would still be very expensive to run in.

The ideal check on elected official ought to be the need to do well in their next election. In that sense, then term limits may actually make things worse.

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

Term limits do sort of deal with some of the problems you mention. In the term limit term, the incumbent doesn't have to raise money so they're free to govern. Challengers are obviously encouraged since the incumbent won't be running.

That's not enough to make term limits a good idea though.

You're right -- the way my comment was written, obviously term limits would mean that an incumbent couldn't simply keep on running and taking advantage of their incumbency. But until they hit their term limit, they'd still have to be fundraising for their next election. And if I were to reframe my comment about the desirability of a more diverse (in the full sense of that word) set of candidates running for office, then I don't think term limits actually help as, even though a specific individual would be term-limited, actual races would still be very expensive to run in.

The ideal check on elected official ought to be the need to do well in their next election. In that sense, then term limits may actually make things worse.

yeah, I agree with all that.

Depressed and/or enraged that the first thing i hear about R action in the House is that they propose to cut out the recent increase in IRS funding.  Absolutely goes to show that they have zero interest in efficient and effective government.  WTF!!  You cut your accounts receivable department, even though it's been known for years/decades that their systems are way out of date, they're understaffed, and their budget has been massacred year after year after year.

From the big to the small: 

They've more or less conceded that they couldn't even try to audit T while he was president (would take too much staff/time, also he and his attorneys have been dilatory ****s in the past), though it's customary (or legally required??) to audit presidents' returns AND he repeatedly claimed that he couldn't release his returns because they were "under audit." 

And in the micro, we waited till 11/22 to get the refund we filed for in 4/21, due to the 2021-22 IRS meltdown (outdated systems + inadequate staff, unable to deal with pandemic issues).

end rant, but my dearest hope is that they get TFG for taxes, like Capone.

eta: And even though i promised "end rant," let's try some cui bono here.  Who wins from these cuts?  People trying to game the system with elaborate schemes, hidden money, etc., and those betting they won't be audited (and they won't).  Who loses?  Anybody who needs to speak to a person at IRS, and everybody who is paying the taxes that should be paid by the gamers and cheats.

mjc said:

Depressed and/or enraged that the first thing i hear about R action in the House is that they propose to cut out the recent increase in IRS funding.  Absolutely goes to show that they have zero interest in efficient and effective government.

As expected, their 2022 campaign was a lie. Vote for us to take care of inflation because Biden didn't, to take care of crime, to stop the invasion at the border. Many were suckered into voting for them.

Now that they have the House where are their promised programs? Any details? 

The only thing I'm hearing now is them pontificating on investigating Hunter Biden's laptop and the supposedly deep state FBI.

We'll be treated to a two year circus.

Addendum to the cui bono list:  hog-tying the IRS (again) is also helpful to those who want to say government can never do anything right. sigh.

mjc said:

Addendum to the cui bono list:  hog-tying the IRS (again) is also helpful to those who want to say government can never do anything right. sigh.

Hog tying won't be effective until September when the 2024 budget needs to be passed or when the debt ceiling needs to be increased.

I'm disappointed with Democrats. They respond weakly.

The lame duck session should have removed the debt ceiling. They could also have passed a 2024 budget, one simply made identical to their 2023 budget. A budget that can of course be subject to modification but should the Republican house attempt unpalatable modifications the Senate could have rejected. Then there would still budgets lasting the end of Biden's current term. Budgets not subject to Republican blackmail.

RTrent said:

The lame duck session should have removed the debt ceiling. They could also have passed a 2024 budget, one simply made identical to their 2023 budget.

Did Democrats need/have more reconciliation cards to play in the lame duck session to avert a filibuster and get those measures through the Senate? (Or is that question moot because this plan also comes with the elimination of the filibuster?)

DaveSchmidt said:

RTrent said:

The lame duck session should have removed the debt ceiling. They could also have passed a 2024 budget, one simply made identical to their 2023 budget.

Did Democrats need/have more reconciliation cards to play in the lame duck session to avert a filibuster and get those measures through the Senate? (Or is that question moot because this plan also comes with the elimination of the filibuster?)

I don't know.

What I do know is a filibuster rule can be removed by a simple majority vote, the so called nuclear option. Which the Republicans did when they removed the filibuster limitation on SC nominations.

So, claiming they couldn't do anything because of the filibuster is bs.

RTrent said:

I don't know.

What I do know is a filibuster rule can be removed by a simple majority vote, the so called nuclear option. Which the Republicans did when they removed the filibuster limitation on SC nominations.

So, claiming they couldn't do anything because of the filibuster is bs.

But they didn’t have that majority with Synema and Manchin not supporting it’s elimination.

Don’t blame Democrats, blame those two.

jimmurphy said:

But they didn’t have that majority with Synema and Manchin not supporting it’s elimination.

Don’t blame Democrats, blame those two.

They're Democrats, aren't they? Or both of them were, anyway.

I do blame them. Enough with the excuses. Its their responsibility to get their act together.

It seems there are always lacking votes. Many years ago Medicare was supposed to be expanded by lowering eligibility to 55. Again, it was torpedoed by a Democrats.

RTrent said:

They're Democrats, aren't they? Or both of them were, anyway.

I do blame them. Enough with the excuses. Its their responsibility to get their act together.

It seems there are always lacking votes. Many years ago Medicare was supposed to be expanded by lowering eligibility to 55. Again, it was torpedoed by a Democrats.

They're DINOs - particularly Manchin. 

Actually Synema is an Independent now.

You're being naive.  

I won’t be surprised if McCarthy puts Santos to lead the ethics committee.