Having followed the ups and downs and twists and turns of House passage of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, I offered some thoughts at New York of where things stand for Republicans and for Democrats:
Republicans are in a state of euphoric self-congratulation over House passage of what’s known as the Big Beautiful Bill.
Politico Playbook, the Beltway’s daily bread, referred to the GOP Speaker of the House as “Magic Johnson” for his last-minute deal-making and cat-herding in securing its passage by a single vote, which happened before a Memorial Day deadline that many had thought unrealistic. He’s sharing credit, of course, with The Boss, Donald Trump, who wheedled and threatened and thundered in the presence of BBB holdouts at several key moments. In the end, for all the interminable talk of “rebellious” GOP factions unwilling to support the gigantic bill as either too vicious or not vicious enough, the price of collective failure was just too high for nearly all of them.
But now, of course, we are about to be reminded that Congress is a bicameral institution, and despite Republican control of both chambers, there are enough issues in the Senate with the carefully balanced Jenga tower the House built to endanger the edifice anew. And when the Senate does produce its version of BBB (the informal but very real deadline is July 4), the two bills will have to be reconciled, and the final product passed by both Houses and sent to Trump for his signature. This needs to happen before the arrival of the so-called X Date — likely in August — when the Treasury finally breaches the statutory debt limit, which is increased in the BBB.
As a former Senate employee, I can assure you that members and staff of that body have enormous institutional self-regard, regardless of party, and will not accept take-it-or-leave-it demands from the petty little pissants of the House. Beyond that, it’s important to understand that what makes “reconciliation” bills like BBB possible is the ability to avoid a Senate filibuster, and there are arcane but very real rules, policed by the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian, about what can and cannot be included in a budget reconciliation bill. So some changes may become absolutely necessary.
More importantly, the very divisions that came close to derailing the bill in the House exist in the Senate as well, with some special twists.
One of the most powerful House factions was the SALT caucus, a sizable group of Republicans from high-tax blue states determined to lift or abolish the cap on SALT (state and local tax) deductions imposed by the 2017 tax cut bill. They were able to secure an increase in the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 (with an inflation adjustment over the next ten years), a juicy treat for upper-middle-income tax itemizers with big property-tax bills, costing an estimated $320 billion. There are no Republican senators from the big SALT states, but there are a lot who deeply resent what they regard as a subsidy for free-spending Democrats in the states most affected. Maybe they’ll care enough about GOP control of the House to throw a lifeline to vulnerable members like Mike Lawler of New York or Young Kim of California, who have made SALT a big personal campaign-trail issue. But there are limits to empathy in Washington.
Another red-hot issue in the House was the size and nature of Medicaid cuts, with the BBB winding up with big cuts mostly accomplished via new “work requirements” that will cost millions of low-income people their health insurance. Senators are divided on Medicaid as well, notes Politico:
“GOP Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have all warned they have red lines they will not cross on Medicaid and that they believe the House bill goes beyond ‘waste, fraud and abuse.’ The alignment between Hawley, a staunch conservative, with moderates like Murkowski and Collins, underscores how skittishness over changes to the health safety-net program is resonating across the ideological spectrum.”
There are similar problems with the SNAP (food stamp) cuts that shift many billions of dollars of costs to the states. And the way BBB structure the SNAP cuts the cost-shift will be particularly egregious for states with high “error rates” for SNAP paperwork and benefit determinations. Three states with two Republican senators each, Alaska, South Carolina and Tennessee, could really get hammered. They won’t be happy about it.
But at the same time, the HFC hard-liners, who were the very last faction to cave in to Trump’s pressure on the BBB, have counterparts in the Senate with their own complaints about the roughly $3 trillion the BBB adds to the national debt, notes Politico:
“Sen. Ron Johnson … is pushing for a return to pre-pandemic spending levels — a roughly $6 trillion cut. The Wisconsin Republican said in an interview he knows he won’t get that level of savings in the megabill but wants to tackle a chunk under the budget reconciliation process and then set up a bicameral commission to go ‘line by line’ to find the rest.
“Johnson also believes he has the votes to block a bill that doesn’t take deficit reduction seriously, pointing to Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky as senators sharing his concerns.”
If Mike Johnson is “magic,” Ron Johnson is “poison.”
On top of everything else, the budget resolution the Senate passed to set up its version of BBB includes an accounting trick that basically means the two chambers are operating from very different baseline numbers. The Senate’s insistence on “current policy scoring” means $3.8 trillion worth of expiring tax cuts that will be resurrected are deemed as “revenue neutral,” a fancy term for “free.” Perhaps the Senate parliamentarian will blow up that scam, but if not, it will cause problems in the House.
These are just the most obvious BBB problems; others will emerge as senators use their leverage to shape the bill to reflect their own political needs and the grubbier desires of the wealthy interests Republicans tend to represent. And for all the talk of the House being the body in which Republicans have no margin for error or division (two voted no and one voted “present”), the same number of GOP senators, four, could blow up the BBB. It’s going to be a long, wild ride, and the only people in Washington who know exactly what to say about the BBB are Democrats. No matter what tweaks Republicans make, the final product is still going to “cut safety net programs to give the wealthy tax cuts” while borrowing money to do so. That’s just baked into the cake.
Regarding Bush (and Gov. Romney, and other socially backward types of their ilk) on gay marriage: It is not clear to me that they will not be able to use it as a wedge issue. But I believe it should be possible for our candidate to argue forcefully that it is un-American to decry judges for doing the terrificly important job that the Founders gave them: defending the rights of a minority of citizens, especially when those citizens are widely disliked. When Bush and his allies lament that the “will of the people” has been usurped by activist judges, they really are talking about the mob mentality of the bullying majority, which Madison & Co. most reasonably feared.
“And as we’ve seen in the last few weeks, people don’t really start thinking about an election until very late. He could tank, as his father did when people started thinking seriously about whether they wanted to see him on TV for another 4 years.”
Ron Thompson, I certainly hope you’re right. The continuously mounting evidence of this administration’s utter dishonesty and incompetence makes it rather discouraging that Bush’s approval rating is still anywhere near 50%.
I am of the belief that Karl Rove still has cards to play.
But in order to keep Rove off his game, Dems have to keep Bush playing defense. Talk lost tax revenue as well as defecit. Index cuts to popular and essential programs in terms of dollars gained by people who make over $2 million per year. Ask the big question, “Should a president deceive you in order to do something you agree with? Graphically demonstrate (not simply pie charts, etc) how long it would take to make up the the slack between the jobs Bush promised and the jobs he’s created. There’s more, but I have to get back to work….
The problem with Kerry is the same as it was for Gore, he seems completely ungenuine (ingenuine?). I believe that he, like Gore, is a very well qualified and principled individual, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but he is going to turn off my mother-in-law just like Gore. He just can’t win because Bush seems genuine (ironies of ironies).
I’m still for Clark. The question “Who can beat Bush?” is the right question. I don’t think the answer is Kerry because Kerry says he won’t make an issue of the war. Of course he might be rethinking that if the polls show that it’s safe to speak up, but assuming he sticks to his original agenda, he won’t talk about the war. and that is not only cowardly but also stupid.
Bush will make an issue of the war. He has to. He has no othe issue. That means like it or not the Democrats have to run against the war. Humphrey tried to ignore the biggest moral issue of his day when he ran aginst Nixon in 1968. He concentrated on domestic issues because the Democratic party leaders then, as now, lacked the balls to take a moral stand or provide leadership in opposition to a war. Humphrey lost.
Dean understands that leaders create issues. /they speak out over and over until they are heard. They don’t check the polls to find out what they think. The problem is that Dean isn’t the right messenger to tell the American people that Bush led them into an unnecessary war and killed over 500 citizens for a megalomaniacal fantasy. Kerry is in a better position to attack but he lacks the nerve. He won’t publicize Bush’s lies until the polls tell him it’s safe. That leaves Clark.
Clark is the person who has the courage to take an stand and the stature and experience to back it up. He is the one that can tell Americans that they got conned and misled. His candidacy is that best thing that has happened to the Democrats in years.
He’s also the best choice for another reason. He’s a Southerner and he has the Southerner’s ability to talk about values, religion, family etc. and sound sincere(because he is sincere). Those issues and that sincere demeanor matter to Independent voters. It may be that Ruy is right and we don’t need the Southern states to win. However we do need the Independent voters and they are more likey to vote for a Southerner regardless of where they reside. Look at the track record. Southern Democrats have won far more often than Northerners. It’s a matter of style. They have a broader appeal in marginal states.
To bad he won’t get the nomination.
A similar thing happened in the President’s last big speech, on September 7th. He did a Sunday night address to the nation on Iraq, hurriedly announced on Friday afternoon, and the percentage of approval for his handling of Iraq after the speech was worse than before. So that’s twice in a row he’s left his audience unimpressed.
The country willed itself to think well of him after 9/11. And as we’ve seen in the last few weeks, people don’t really start thinking about an election until very late. He could tank, as his father did when people started thinking seriously about whether they wanted to see him on TV for another 4 years.
i think it’s great that Bush’s SOTU address was properly interpreted, and it HURT him accordingly. after all, he focused more on steroids than health care.