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.
Marcus, I hate to throw cold water on anyone’s hopes, but don’t get too excited about SUSA polls. They have often shown results well out of line with other surveys–in both directions; conversely, don’t get depressed when they show us doing worse than other polls.
In my home state, which gave Gore a 17% margin in 2000, SUSA showed a tie in mid-September and Republicans were exuberant. Two weeks later they showed Kerry leading by 15 points. I don’t think there was that great a swing here, because Maryland was never tied in the first place.
But I agree with your broader point about the states. Virginia and North Carolina are, I think, closer than most people think through probably not enough for Kerry to win them. And I think the press is overestimating Bush’s strength in NJ.
More good news from Mickey Kaus, leader of the “Kerry haters voting for Kerry” group of bloggers —
“Those dueling Ohio polls are reconciled here. They’re actually ‘amazingly consistent,’ says the now-famous Mystery Pollster .
His quite convincing explanation is not an auspicious one for President Bush. … Meanwhile, look at these results of the Survey USA robo-poll. Isn’t Kerry shockingly close in presumed Bush states like Virginia (50-46) and North Carolina (50-47)? That’s much closer than Kerry’s lead in allegedly in-play states like Pennsylvania (51-45) and New Jersey (51-43) … [You’re starting to sound like Ruy Teixeira.–ed I’ll lie down until it goes away.]”
MARCU$
According to NPR last night, Bush has not been to Ohio since early Oct., and his latest travel plans do not include it. Most certainly this is not because it is in the bag. Has he in fact written it off?
Very glad to hear about favorable battlegrounds, indies, and internals, but I have a question for the pros here.
I have now read several times in high-profile blogs that (in essence) “the incumbent needs to be 3-4 points ahead on election day because undecideds traditionally break for the challenger.”
I’ve been looking to this (and other trends) for reassurance, but I keep wondering: What if this year isn’t like any other year?
What if the “one-dimensional patriot” vote looks past everything else and buys W’s tough guy act? What if we’re still early enough into this war that cognitive dissonance is too weak to sway the electorate? (Nixon won, after all, and we’d been in Vietnam for years and years.) What if, in our first post-9/11 presidential election, the nation hears only Bush’s bullhorn in the voting booth?
That’s a lot of conjecture, but my question is this: How confident are you that this trend — late-deciders breaking for the challenger — will hold? Are other trends particularly vulnerable this year? I know it’s probably like casting the bones, but is anyone doing any analysis that might give us a clue?
Thanks very much, and thanks for all the hard work.
Ruy,
I was a bit surprised to see in the WaoPo article on voter registration, that the GOP bested the Dems by a slight margin in Florida. However, the ACT coordinator bragged that they spanked the Republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Iowa, in particular.
No way, am I conceding Florida, knowing we have a very real chance there, while I know the Bush supporters are in real denial, in the face of such success by the Soros groups.
But, is the Kerry camp factoring in these registration numbers with their internal polling?
George Bush is not leading in a single state that Al Gore carried in the 2000 election.
One presumes we’re taking Gore actually having likely won FL out of this equation, for wholly academic discussion purposes.
The one caveat with that statement, then, is that the electoral votes for the 2000 Bush states have increased overall by 7, with a corresponding loss in Gore states. This means an electoral deficit that increases from 4 (271-267) to 18 (278-260). This means Kerry absolutely MUST win at least one state that went for Bush in 2000, and it better have 10 or more EVs.
Either OH or FL will do nicely, of course, but even MO would do the trick.
I’ve been pointing out, though, that to make this election stick, we need to have an unassailable majority — we can’t have it hinge on one close state, the way it did in 2000. My hunch is that we may well have anywhere from 4 to 8 “Floridas” this year; even if there isn’t another EC debacle (and I do not expect a constitutional process to be followed if there is), we’ll have several state-level results challenged between election day and electoral college day.
Not to get too far off topic.
Any information on the latest ABC poll or WSJ/NBC
poll. There must be something funny with the internals in the ABC poll to show Bush leading by
5.
I sure hope you all are right and my expectations of a machine agenda of putting in Bush one way or another are wrong.
If Kerry can effectively neutralize the flipflop issue (halve the harm it does now), and the “nuisance/soft on terrorism” thing, he should have it. In the latter case, a major speech and going on the offensive intelligently would do it.
The incumbent needs to be up by 4 pts overall with which category of voter? Likely or registered?
I am concerned that the (unfounded) belief held by many, esp. the so-called security moms, that only Bush can keep them safe will override all other concerns once in the voting booth and could invalidate the conventional wisdom that undecided voters break overwhelmingly for the challenger on election day. I certainly hope this is not the case.
Slightly off-topic, but does anybody find it odd that the NY Times poll showed Bush’s approval rating as 44% while the Washington Post poll from the exact same day showed a much higher 53%?
I guess it could be a difference is the actual question the poll asks. But I find the Post poll a bit odd, considering it’s the only one where a majority approves of the president’s job performance.
Anyone have info on that poll?
Zogby Battleground
by Chris Bowers Oct 19
Maybe the wingers won’t be complaining about the new Zogby numbers after all:
Kerry Bush
OR 55.7 42.6
MN 54.2 43.1
WA 54.3 43.9
NM 53.6 44.1
MI 52.6 45.9
PA 51.8 46.1
NH 51.1 46.0
WI 51.3 47.5
IA 51.1 47.9
WV 45.8 48.6
AR 48.4 49.7
NV 45.9 49.8
FL 48.9 50.1
TN 47.8 50.3
OH 47.6 50.6
MO 47.6 50.7 Kerry looks very comfortable in OR, MN, WA, NM, MI, PA and NH, all of which show Bush, as the incumbent, completely out of contention barring a major October surprise. WI and IA are also very good, especially for a challenger (challengers over 51 always win). However, These numbers would lead to a 269-269 tie, as the undecided break in WV, but nowhere else, would push Kerry over the top.
On the plus side, if this is accurate, Kerry has all of the Gore states plus New Hampshire shored up, and can spend the significant majority of his resources trying to flipjust one other 2000 Bush state, all of which are very close. On the negative side, if this is accurate, Kerry comfortably wins the popular vote, but the electoral vote is tied and Bush wins in the House.
I’ll see you on the barricades if that happens.
If Kerry/Edwards win two of the “big three” (Penn, Fla, and Ohio), they’ll probably take the cake.
[and if they win all three, forget about it!]
But;
Maybe I’m looking at old polls, but Bush seems to be ahead in New Mexico. Also, recent polls have shown him with leads in Wisconsin. He’s tied with Kerry in Iowa and Minnesota.
I worry very much about these northern states breaking for Bush.
If Bush is ahead an average of 4 points in national polls is it possible that Kerry could still be leading in electoral college. Could he actually win electoral college and lose by 4 points on 11/2
regester as a Republican so you can get to vote and then vote Kerry.
.
Off the immediate topic of this posting, but…
I hope you’ll soon be discussing the internals of the current Gallup poll, which (surprise) turns out to have a sample that skews way to the right. Steve Soto at the Left Coaster has the goods.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003054.html
It’s really out of the candidate’s hands now. Barring a major gaffe, it will be events on the ground that decide this election. The dynamic is currently working against Bush. He can’t do anything to significantly shift the numbers, nor can Kerry. Events in Iraq, news on jobs and the economy, terrorist attacks, and gas prices will probably decide the outcome.