Roll Call: Political Theater: The Congressional Republican Budget Blueprints

"Usually, when Congress gets down to the wire on a legislative deadline, the Senate tells the House what is possible and the House more or less goes along with what the Senate can pass, given its procedural limitations such as the filibuster. But the budget process, or what passes for the budget process these days, can scramble things a bit, and what we are observing now is a closely divided GOP-majority House turn the tables on the closely divided GOP-majority Senate. Asked about the extent of House-proposed cuts to the Medicaid health program, for instance, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., replied, “I don’t love that.”

But here we are. In recent days, the Senate and House have both passed versions of their own budget resolution, one of the key steps in constructing a so-called reconciliation bill that will cut spending and taxes and enact GOP legislative priorities without having to deal with the usual Senate roadblocks. But there’s a long way to go until something heads to the president’s desk, so we’re going to talk about what’s been happening and what is going on with CQ Roll Call’s illustrious Budget Tracker, David Lerman." 

Source:Roll Call with a look at U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (MAGA, Missouri)

From Roll Call

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about this yesterday: 

"So what this means is the House didn't pass a Federal budget last night and the Senate didn't pass 1 last week. What they did instead was (if Cillizza is correct) is just pass blueprints and lay out their goals for what they want to pass and cut in the Federal budget this year in Congress. So if that's true, then this is where this discussion could be a lot of fun... or at least interesting... at the very least, it no longer sounds like a Senate filibuster where a senator is reading from a phonebook. (Sorry for the Congressional joke) 

So what this means is that House Republicans as of right now, can't even agree with themselves on what to cut from the Federal budget and how much, in order to pass the President's agenda as it relates to military spending, border security, extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, etc... 

From The New Democrat

As my colleague Rik Schneider wrote about this yesterday:

"And to Carl Higbie's point about "tax cuts automatically paying for themselves": if that were true (and fish could fly and dogs said meow) then how come every time the Republican Party has passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts, they've always had sunset provisions in them? Meaning they expire lets's say 5-10 years later and have to be extended by Congress to stay law. The answer because the Congressional Budget Office (which is Republican controlled) doesn't agree with that line of thinking. ("Thinking" might be too generous of a word here) 

So the CBO tells the House and Senate that they either have to pay for their tax cuts through budget cuts, or raise new revenue up front, or they have to have sunset previsions in them to be able to pass through reconciliation and not be subjected to the 60 vote rule in the Senate. 

I'm all in favor of border security and for a stronger defense in America... depending on how the legislation is structured. But when you campaign on the national debt and Federal deficit being too high, wouldn't you want to do something about those issues once you are in office and have the power to fix those problems? Instead of trying to figure out how you get around your own budget rules and trying to pass your legislation onto the national debt card, through reconciliation?" 

From The New Democrat

On a less serious note first: I think it would easier to balance the 7 trillion dollar Federal budget (that's currently running a 2T$ deficit) then it would be to find the right balance between what would be acceptable to both the House and Senate. Meaning 1 bill that could get a majority vote in both chambers. 

Yes, American voters gave us Donald J. Trump as President and gave us a Republican Congress. The catch is, they gave Republicans bare majorities in both the House and Senate. But the House Republican Leadership and the Senate Republican Leadership are trying to govern as if they have like 250 votes out of 435 in the House (instead of just 219-434) and that they have 60 votes in the Senate out of 100, instead of just 53. 

And cutting Medicaid, just to cut it, or to pay for tax cuts isn't popular right now. And with those tight majorities in Congress, the entire House Republican Conference is not MAGA. They have like 100 members. And there are what's left of the center-right of the Republican Party, that represents blue and swing districts, who are going to be in tough reelection battles next year, who don't want to vote to gut Medicaid and other public assistance programs, just to gut them, or to pay for tax cuts. 

And House Republicans only have a 2 seat majority right now, (put of 435 seats) so if they try to cut too much for the so-called moderates, or not enough for MAGA, there goes their reconciliation budget bill. 

Democrats got a good political lesson in 2022 about overstepping their political mandate from 2020. And now it looks like we are in the very early stages of American voters giving Congressional Republicans a lesson about political mandates as well. And even if Republicans are successful here and get their agenda through Congress, it could be very unpopular and cost them at least the House, if not the entire Congress in 2026. But we will see. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Roll Call: David Hawkings- 'Opus: '5 Reasons Why Congress is Broken'

Source:Roll Call- Our broken U.S. Congress. 

"Roll Call senior editor David Hawkings has been covering Congress for three decades, and he’s convinced that the legislative branch is more broken now than at any other point in his career. Here’s why." 

Source:Roll Call

I guess I would disagree a little with what David Hawkings is saying here and that I would add a little to his argument as well.

Money, is an issue with Congressional elections, but it's not the issue. It's not so much what's spent on House and Senate elections, but the fact that we as voters don't know what the money is spent on and how it was raised, who donated the money to the Congressional candidate or incumbent, or did a third-party raise that money and decided to spend it on a Congressional race and how they raised that money.

If someone wants to spend ( or waste ) 10 million dollars on a U.S. House race, that's their money. But we as voters and the media have a right to know how they raised and spent that money. So we know if that candidate or incumbent is being bought like a loaf or bread and taking policy positions based on what their political contributors are giving them. And if they promised their contributors votes and bills if they give them money.

If we had full-disclosure on all political contributions from candidates, incumbents, and third-parties that and raise and spend their own money on Congressional elections and money that's raised and spent by third-parties to run their own advertising on those races, we could fire a lot of crooks and liars in Congress, because we would know how they get their political contributions. 

Or another option would be that those crooks and liars would clean their political hands and start voting and legislating based on what they actually believe is best for their district or state, because they don't want to be seen as bought because they know the voters, media, and probably more important for them the Federal Elections Commission will know how they raise their money. Who they're getting their political contributions from.

With full-disclosure, people could ask themselves: "Do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the oil and gas industry and always votes and legislates in favor of them?" Or: "Do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the teacher unions and never takes a position that goes against them like school choice and school accountability?" 

Members of Congress in both chambers fundraising records would become public, as well as their Congressional records their votes and positions that they've taken in Congress, because of full-disclosure and voters would have a lot of information at their disposal to look at and see if they want to reelect their Representative or Senator. or vote for or against their opponents when they're up for reelection.

Just to talk about the U.S. House for a second and the main reasons why the House is broken and functions more like a broken home where you can't close the doors or windows in it, and the floors are cracking, is two reasons.

Gerrymandering- the reason why Representatives are so partisan and act as if they now hate members of the other party and just don't disagree with them is because they represent gerrymandered districts and voters who hate the other party. These Representatives simply come from the community that they represent and are representing the views of their constituents in the House. 

You eliminate partisan gerrymandering from both parties and Democratic and Republican Representatives would then be forced to represent people from both parties in their district. Instead of representing a House district where 3-5 or 7-10 voters in their district are members of their own party. They would be forced to moderate their positions and tone in order to get reelected because their district would be a lot more diverse.

Majority always rules- the other reason why the House is so partisan is because of the way the chamber is set and run where the majority party isn't just in complete control of the agenda but how bills are debated and have complete control of whether even amendments to partisan bills can be offered or not. Unlike in the Senate where the minority party led by the Minority Leader can not only obstruct the majority if they have at least 41 votes to do that, but can offer amendments and substitutes and have those amendments voted on to every bill that comes to the Senate floor, as well as in committee.

Not saying that the House should also have a cloture rule and allow the minority party led by the Minority Leader to obstruct everything, because that would make the Washington rush hour look like a NASCAR event, ( an inside the beltway joke ) and nothing would get done in the house. But the House minority party should at least be allowed to offer amendments and substitutes to bills and have those alternatives voted on to every bill that the majority party tries to write and pass on their own. Giving the minority party stake in the game and a feeling that there to do something other than to talk and vote no.

I'll just close this piece with a little George Carlin the great political satirist. He asked the question to his audience during one of his shows where do politicians come from? And I'll paraphrase him by saying they weren't shipped here from Mars or some other planet or flown in here from another country. They go to the same schools that we did and same communities. They represent the communities that sent them to Congress or whatever office they hold.

Carlin's point was that politicians aren't much different than the people they're supposed to represent that their Congressional salary is supposed to pay for. The reason why Congress especially the House is so partisan is because that is what their voters want it to be. To vote exactly the want they want them to and represent their values and not compromise, because they see the other party as the enemy and not as opponent. 

You want a better and less partisan Congress, especially in the House, you need better and less partisan voters voting for its members. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Roll Call: David Hawkings - Whiteboard: What is a Filibuster?

Source: Roll Call-

Source:Roll Call

David Hawkings is right about what an actual filibuster is. Its generally one Senator or a group of Senator's who take to the Senate floor and talk forever basically, or till they run out of breath, faint, have to use the bathroom, discover they have lives, perhaps miss their kids and wives, etc. Maybe the Senate Leader finds the 60 votes that he needs to cut off the Senator or Senator's that are speaking.

And generally but not always filibusters are performed (if you want to call filibustering a performance) by a member or members of the minority party. The Senate has a filibuster and the cloture rule, but its really the cloture rule is used by the Minority Leader who rounds up enough votes to stop the majority from moving ahead on legislation that is used by the minority to block legislation.

Instead of minority members speaking indefinitely about a particular bill, the Minority Leader will round up 41 or more votes to simply prevent the majority from moving to final passage on a bill that probably has no minority input on it and perhaps didn't even go through committee. And then the Minority Leader or his deputy who is generally the lead minority member on the committee that has jurisdiction of the bill, will argue that the Senate simply hasn't had enough time to consider the legislation and the minority simply can't support this and isn't ready to vote on the bill.

The minority party blocks legislation all the time with the cloture rule. The Minority Leader will announce that they intend to block the legislation. The Leader will then move to final passage, but to get to final passage of legislation which is the final vote, the majority party needs 60 votes to accomplish that. Which generally doesn't happen on partisan legislation because Congress tends to be very divided at least in the last 40 years or so. Even when on party controls both the House and Senate, their majorities tend to be fairly small, especially in the Senate. And the Senate minority party tends to have at least 45 members which is more than enough to block legislation on their own, if the Minority Leader keeps them unified against partisan legislation that the majority party wants to pass.

I'm somewhat divided on the Senate filibuster myself. Even as a Democrat who sees his party both as the minority party in Congress, but as the opposition party and in the White House. Filibusters themselves I'm not a fan of. The idea that one Senator or even a group of them can command so much attention and power by themselves, which makes them as powerful as both the Minority Leader and Majority Leader, even if there're a freshman and perhaps have no other experience in Congress other than their first year or 2 in the Senate, seems counterproductive and makes the party leaderships seem very weak.

But on the other side as a Liberal who believes in both limited government and is against absolute power even if the Democratic Party is the party with complete control over the government, I don't want the Senate to become like the House of Representatives. I actually believe the House is too much like the House and not calling for the House minority party to be able to block legislation on their own that majority brings to the floor, but the House minority should at least be able to offer relevant amendments and alternatives to all legislation that majority brings to the floor and committee. And at the end of the day if the majority party has a simple majority or more to pass legislation, then they would be able to do that even if not one minority Representative votes for the bill.

What Congress needs to return to is regular order. Where if the majority parties in either the House or Senate, decide not to work with the minority on legislation, then their bills at least have to go through the relevant committee or committees where hearings are held, amendments and alternatives are offered, debated and voted on. And then if the final bill passes out of committee, then the bill goes to the floor where the same process is done all over again, but this time with everyone in the chamber able to debate and offer amendments to the bill.

If Congress both the Senate and House did this and you eliminated gerrymandering, you could see less obstruction and partisanship in Congress. Because the majority party in both chambers would then know they can't steamroll the minority and be able to pass partisan legislation with very little if any debate and probably no amendments. And the minority party in both chambers would then know that they have a stake in the game (so to speak) and know they'll be able to offer amendments and alternatives to all legislation that the majority brings up and be able to force the majority to take tough votes and have new issues to run on the during the next election.

I'm not a fan of the filibuster because it makes both the Minority Leader and Majority Leader weak. It makes back-benching Senator's seem as powerful as the two leaders. But I don't like absolute power especially when one party controls both the White House and Congress. So you need to strengthen the leadership's while protecting minority rights and our checks and balances.

So I would eliminate the filibuster and say for legislation to be blocked from final passage in the Senate, it can only be done by the two leader's. Have a motion to table that only the Leader and Minority Leader can propose and similar to the cloture rule when the Minority Leader moves to table the bill, the Leader can overcome that with 60 votes.

Along with the new amendment process where the members of both parties can offer relevant amendments to all legislation and the minority can offer alternative bills to all legislation. And then I believe you would see less partisanship because now both parties would be able to debate and even legislate and just need to the votes for the amendments to do that.

And I believe you would also see less obstruction from the minority party, because instead of the Minority Leader trying to block legislation by himself, he might just decide to let legislation go through once it has been fully debated with a real amendment process and use those votes as election issues.

The filibuster is outdated but checks and balances aren't and absolute power with the opposition having no ability to hold the party in power accountable is un-liberal democratic. This is not a one-party state or a parliamentary system where the party in power doesn't just have the power to govern, but the power to rule. We'll always need checks and balances especially when one party has complete control of the government.

Roll Call: Emma Dumain: New Democrat Coalition Wants Bigger Role in Party's Message

Source:The New Democrat 

The New Democrats to me at least are the Liberal Democrats in the Democratic Party. There whole message is about growth, opportunity, freedom, responsibility, investment and that government has role in seeing that everyone can achieve these things, but through limited government. And these are the Democrats that represent especially under the current gerrymander political system for how we elect representatives, represent the difference in whether House Democrats are in the majority or the minority. When there’s a large New Democrat Coalition in the House, as well as Blue Dogs, Democrats tend to control the House. Because these two factions come from swing districts in the country.

And to me their message I believe is fairly simple and shouldn’t be wishy-washy muddy middle. And they could use JFK or Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama rhetoric in laying out their message. They should say, “we believe in growth, opportunity, freedom and responsibility, but for all Americans who do their part to achieve those things. That freedom in America shouldn’t be decided based on the income level of your parents and where you grew up. But based on one’s own talents, ability and character and what they produce. That quality education should be for everyone. Not just for people whose parents can afford private schools, or live in areas where there are good public schools. But for everyone with parents being able to decide the best public school for their child. Not the central office.”

And then lay out a real agenda with real concrete proposals.

When it comes to issues like energy that is about all the above American energy resources that uses all of American energy resources including oil and gas in the short-term to move to renewable sources long-term.

Comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders as best as possible. While bringing 10-15 illegal immigrants who aren’t criminals and work hard for a living out of the closet to pay a fine, any back taxes that they may own and to work towards legal status. That brings in well-qualified immigrants from other countries.

Infrastructure investment to rebuild America that is paid for by everyone since we all consume infrastructure. And something like a Nation Infrastructure Bank that brings in private investors to rebuild the country long-term.

Education reform that is about new investment in low-income low-performing school districts. But also investing in good teachers whose students actually learn and encouraging well-qualified adults to become educators, but teach in low-income districts. And public school choice so low-income students can go to good schools. With their parents making those decisions.

An anti-poverty agenda that is actually about moving Americans out of poverty. And not leaving them on public assistance with bigger Welfare checks. But about things like Welfare to Work, where people on Welfare can get the education and job training they need to get a good job and get out of poverty. Job training for low-income workers so they can get themselves a good job and become middle if not high-income workers.

What would really help New Democrats with young voters (such as myself, if I still qualify as young) would be taking strong stances against the War on Drugs. Being in favor of rehab over prison for drug users and addicts. People who successfully complete drug rehab at their own cost wouldn’t have a criminal record. Marijuana decriminalization and legalization for adults twenty-one and over that comes with taxation regulation.

Criminal justice reform where we’re not locking up so many non-violent offenders who don’t need to be incarcerated at all. And those who do we would be better off if they are in rehab or in a halfway house or even county jail doing short-term sentences. And for offenders who need to be in prison offer them opportunities to give up their criminal careers and become productive inmates. With educational and work opportunities so they can become productive citizens when they are out.

The difference between a New Democrat, Liberal really and a centrist is that the New Democrat has real policies based on things that work. The centrist tends to sound all over the place because that is where they are. And have a hard time taking hard stances because they tend to sound like they are talking out of two mouths. Democrats from the Far-Left to the Center-Left tend to believe in similar things. And the debate tends to come down to how big should government be.

New Democrats tend to believe in things that most Americans tend to believe in. Growth, opportunity, freedom and responsibility, but for all and not just the wealthy. That should be the message of New Democrat with an agenda that achieves all of those things. With a limited government, as well as the private sector involved. But where the individual plays the biggest part and does a lot of the work since it is their life. This is what our message should be.

Roll Call: Bridget Bowman: House Republicans Investigating Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization

Source:The New Democrat. 

First of all to dare to correct Roll Call, this is not about the U.S. Congress or even Congressional Republicans against the City of Washington when it comes to legalizing marijuana. Which they already have and marijuana is now legal in Washington for adults. This is about a group of House Republicans on the Government Oversight Committee led by Representative Jason Chaffetz who is Chairman of that committee and other members of that committee who want to put Uncle Sam’s big foot in the way how Washington deals with marijuana in their city.

Apparently the party that is supposed to be anti-big government and Uncle Sam and pro-federalism which is what Republicans have traditionally advertise them as, is now Uncle Sam’s favorite nephews and nieces. And marijuana in Washington is just one example of that. Same-sex marriage and pornography are other perfect examples of that. But the problem that House Republicans have as it relates to marijuana in Washington is that Congress the House and Senate together passed their bill that would throw out marijuana legalization that President Obama signed after the city passed their legalization bill.

The thirty-day period that Congress has to review and overthrow laws that Washington passes themselves has already expired. With neither the House or Senate acting on anything that would overturn the city’s law. So the Washington marijuana legalization law goes forward. And House Republicans led by Representative Chaffetz are left to hold hearings over the Washington law, but without much if any ability to actually overturn it. Because they decided to act against the law after the law was already passed.

Roll Call: Niels Lesniewski: Odd Couples Push Criminal Justice Overhauls

Source:The New Democrat

It shouldn’t be surprising that both John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are in favor of real criminal justice reform that reduce sentencing for people convicted of non-violent sentences. They are both from Texas and their state has one of the most expensive criminal justice systems both on a per-capita basis, but also in total budget in America. And Texas as right-wing as it gets stereotyped and for good reasons, is one of the leaders now when it comes to criminal justice reform and prison rehabilitation. Again because their state has so many people in prison. I believe the largest prison population in the country at least on a per-capita basis. California might have more prisoners as it relates to total numbers.

John Cornyn is the Senate Assistant Majority Leader, the number two Senate Republican right behind Mitch McConnell the Senate Leader. So he has a lot of sway as far as what will come to the Senate floor in this Congress for consideration. Senator Ted Cruz also from Texas is more of a conservative libertarian or has those leanings. So he’s interested along with Senator Rand Paul and Senator Mike Lee in criminal justice reform. So having these three Senate Republicans in the same group on an issue with Senate Democrats like Sheldon Whitehouse, a LBJ Progressive, Dick Durbin someone who I would call a Classical Liberal and Pat Leahy the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee a strong opponent of the War on Drugs, is actually not that surprising for people who follow Congress on a regular basis.

What this Senate coalition is talking about is reducing sentences and for non-violent offenders and not sending so many of them to prison in the first place. This is really about the War on Drugs and getting drug offenders who were simply arrested for illegal narcotics possession and being high on those drugs, into drug rehab instead of prison. They are also talking about over-criminalization and arresting people for doing things that actually don’t hurt other people. Online gambling would be an example of that. Marijuana possession would be another one, I would add adult prostitution as another one. And this is something that Congress should’ve done a long time ago.

Roll Call: David Hawkings: Could Steve Scalise Shepherd a Rewrite of the Voting Rights Act?

Source:The New Democrat. 

Do I think House Republicans especially the House Republican Leadership will see the Steve Scalise situation as an opportunity to reach out to African-Americans and tell them that they care about their issues and are listening to them. And will say “we now support the Voting Rights Act and want to see it extended”. In one word, no because the House GOP especially listens to the Tea Party and their Far-Right that is part of the Tea Party. That favors states rights and they believe that states even have the right deny people the vote even based on race.

If there’s anything done on voting rights in the 114th Congress that is a Republican Congress, the first one since 2005-06, it will happen in the Republican Senate. Because there is bipartisan support for a Voting Rights Act extension. The question is of of course will Senate Leader Mitch McConnell bring it up or not. I really doubt it and don’t believe he even believes in the VRA and already has plenty on his plate as far as what he wants to accomplish in this Congress.

Now in a perfect world, sure why not if you’re a Republican especially in your leadership in Congress either in the House or Senate, or you have big role on the Senate or House Judiciary Committee’s, why not use the Scalise situation to reach out to African-Americans and say “I support voting rights for all Americans, regardless of race, even at the federal level and support an extension of the VRA”. Especially if you also just happen to be running for president in 2016 and perhaps are not even in Congress right now.

If you’re thinking long-term as a Republican and you’re lets say a big-tent establishment Republican and you even support voting rights ideologically, someone like a Jeb Bush, extending the VRA is a no-brainer. Because you believe its good policy and you know the current situation of your party as it relates to minority Americans, especially African and Latino. But again those aren’t the people who run the GOP in Congress, the big-tenters if you will. It’s still the Tea Party and Far-Right, as well as the growing conservative libertarian wing of the GOP that doesn’t support the VRA.