The federal government is going to shut down this weekend, barring some miracle. And Democrats really need to make sure Americans know exactly who insisted on this avoidable crisis. It’s the House GOP, as I explained at New York.
If you are bewildered by the inability of Congress to head off a government shutdown beginning this weekend, don’t feel poorly informed: Some of the Capitol’s top wizards are throwing up their hands as well, as the Washington Post reports:
“’We are truly heading for the first-ever shutdown about nothing,’ said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. Strain has started referring to the current GOP House-led impasse as “the ‘Seinfeld’ shutdown,” a reference to the popular sitcom widely known as ‘a show about nothing.’ ‘The weirdest thing about it is that the Republicans don’t have any demands. What do they want? What is it that they’re going to shut the government down for? We simply don’t know.’”
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Many House Republicans, led by a band of right-wing hard-liners, want to impose their fiscal and policy views on the nation despite the GOP’s narrow majority in the House. Their chief asset, beyond fanaticism, is that the federal government can’t remain open past the end of the fiscal year without the concurrence of the House, and they don’t really mind an extended government shutdown, if only to preen and posture. They are being encouraged in this wildly irresponsible position by their leader and likely 2024 presidential nominee Donald Trump.
But the hard-liners’ real motive, it seems, is to use the dysfunction they’ve caused in the House to get rid of Speaker Kevin McCarthy for being dysfunctional. The not-so-hidden plan hatched by Florida congressman Matt Gaetz is to thwart every effort by McCarthy to move forward with spending plans for the next fiscal year and then defenestrate him via a motion to vacate the chair, which just five Republicans can pass any time they wish (with the complicity of Democrats). Indeed, the Post reports the rebels are casting about for a replacement Speaker right now:
“A contingent of far-right House Republicans is plotting an attempt to remove Kevin McCarthy as House speaker as early as next week, a move that would throw the chamber into further disarray in the middle of a potential government shutdown, according to four people familiar with the effort who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.”
McCarthy’s tormenters would like to have a successor lined up who will presumably be even less inclined to compromise with Democrats than the current Speaker. And that’s saying a lot, since McCarthy has already bowed to the Gaetz demand that House Republicans reject even the idea of a continuing resolution — the stopgap spending measures used to forestall or end government shutdowns in the past — and instead plod through individual appropriations bills loaded with provisions no Democrat would ever accept (e.g., deep domestic spending cuts, draconian border policies, anti-Ukraine measures, and abortion restrictions). It’s a recipe for a long shutdown, but it’s clear if McCarthy moves a muscle toward negotiating with Democrats (who have already passed a CR in the Senate), then kaboom! Here comes the motion to vacate.
Some observers think getting rid of McCarthy is an end in itself for the hard-liners — particularly Gaetz, who has a long-standing grudge against the Californian and opposed his original selection as Speaker to the bitter end — no matter what he does or doesn’t do. In theory, House Democrats could save McCarthy by lending a few “no” votes to him if the motion to vacate hits the floor, but they’ve made it clear the price for saving him would be high, including abandonment of the GOP’s Biden impeachment inquiry.
So strictly speaking, the impending shutdown isn’t “about nothing”; it’s about internal far-right factional politics that very few of the people about to be affected by the shutdown care about at all. Understandably, most Democrats from President Biden on down are focusing their efforts on making sure the public knows this isn’t about “big government” or “politicians” or “partisan polarization,” but about one party’s extremism and cannibalistic infighting. For now, there’s little anyone outside the GOP fever swamps can do about it other than watch the carnage.
Christopher B- What you said! Ruy, help us out. The state by state numbers and the “battleground” subsamples of national polls seem unreconcilable. Which should we believe and why? Which have the greater MOE? And what could account for the discrepancy (which seems too consistent to be due to sampling error)? I realize, only a week and three days until we find out anyway, but I need my piece of mind!
brp
Apparently the Bush campaign is now putting an ad implying that Kerry is hopeless on security, “Wolves”, which sounds pretty powerful.
I really wish the Kerry campaign would counter with a pack of hyenas representing the entire Bush crew.
Just a loopy thought, at a particularly loopy time at the end of a very long campaign year, but they are mimicking the Reagan “Bear” ad and I do think Kerry needs to counter with exactly how dangerous this bunch is, and what a disaster they are for our national security.
Last night on the Aaron Brown program on CNN they had a segment on how dangerous Iraq is to reporters trying to film the story there. They had some magnificent photographs of the ruin so many places in that country are in, and the desperation of the people there. I remember right before we invaded, there were some articles in one of the major papers here on Baghdad, with photos, and what an impressive city it was. The story that is not getting told here, that reminds me so much of the ruination in Vietnam, is what we have done to the daily lives of these people. It sounds terrifying to be there.
We need a change, but there is something essentially wrong with a country with our level of wealth and comfort, so terrified, so bullying, so immune to the needs of the rest of the world, and to our own citizens’.
Go Kerry.
Mady
Saw an interesting theory on one of the blogs regarding the much discussed “undecided” rule. In this election, if one is living in a “swing” state, support for Bush is understood to be intellectually indefensible by Bush leaners. They thus declare themselves as “undecided” to their reality based friends, or simply remain quiet. They are, however, solidly for Bush. They then cast their Bush ballot and, if asked, declare they voted for Kerry. I have read (probably on this site) that the undecided rule is foolproof and of virtual universal applicability, but admit to concern because Bush is such a “unique” candidate.
I am somewhat perplexed by the comprehensive battleground polls that have consistently shown a Kerry edge, which is now quite large. Yet, in most polls of specific battleground states, Kerry does not seem to have anywhere near the same cumulative advantage. How many states are being included in the battleground polls.