Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Republicans Who Voted to Lose — Again
This is about the 1.7 TRILLION dollar spending bill, but it might as well be the title of a weekly column.
The Democrats shoved a four THOUSAND page bill under the pen of Mitch McConnell while they were in a lame-duck House session. All the Republicans had to do was threaten (or force) a shutdown and resolve it with yet another CR, a Continuing Resolution to bridge the operation of government until the next session, in which the Republicans control the House by a slim majority. If I recall correctly, all bills not signed before the next session become moot. This would force the production of a new bill in a House controlled by the GOP, and since this is revenue, it’s the House’s job.
A handful of House Republicans have threatened the Senate GOP with dire consequences if they let this apocalyptic bill pass, and now the Senate has done just that instead of working to peel one or two Democrats away, with the following Republicans joining the Democrats to pass the damned thing by a supermajority:
Richard Shelby – AL
Lisa Murkowski – AK
Tom Cotton – AR
James Inhofe – IA
Todd Young – IN
Jerry Moran – KS
Mitch McConnell – KY
John Boozman – LA
Susan Collins – ME
Roy Blunt – MO
Roger Wicker – MS
Rob Portman – OH
Lindsey Graham – SC
Mike Rounds – SD
John Thune – SD
John Cornyn – TX
Mitt Romney – UT
Shelley Capito – WV
Rep. Chip Roy (R – TX) seems to be leading the charge from the House to hold Senate Republicans accountable. This is right and good, and I hope he gets the support he deserves. He will certainly have my support. You all know me — I could not possibly argue against this:
“Kill this terrible bill or there is no point in pretending we are a united party.”
Hit ’em again, Chip!
The incoming House majority is a slim one indeed, which weakens the GOP. It, therefore, strengthens the crunchy-cons who want the GOP to straighten up and act like something other than Democrats. Whatever the GOP wants in the House, it can be threatened by a kingmaking minority. And the GOP’s response will as usual be to partner up with Democrats to defeat conservatives. They did this to “crush the Tea Party” and they did it when Trump was President.
Watch for the numerous inevitable instances of Republicans lining up to negotiate with their Democrat pals while fighting against the conservative base. I’ll certainly have no interest in your point of view if you refuse to see it for what it is this third time around. Chip Roy ain’t havin’ it and neither am I.
His Twitter feed is a great place to start.
He has been calling out earmarks, sponsoring amendments to cut various abusive expenditures and naming names for the wall of shame.
I do not suspect that he will go the way of Tom Cotton or Dan Crenshaw any time soon. This is my guy.
Published in General
I’m not sure the GOP could look any worse. But every time I’ve thought this in the past, the GOP has later proven me wrong.
Chenshaw as Senator is a horrible thought although he does vote as “Eyepatch McCain”.
Any member of the GOP says they had to vote for the Dem spending bill, because a House GOP bill is “unpredictable” is really saying that the House Freedom Caucus is not controlled by the established. They are also saying that they prefer swinging DC cocktail parties to representing the American people.
Good point. I think it is because the Dem politicians are afraid their voters will make their lives unpleasant. I don’t think Mitt Romney is worried about ever encountering a disgruntled constituent on the street or a restaurant. He is safe in the DC bubble.
No. Crenshaw joined the swamp. Done with him.
Democrats know they can get away with it, because a significant part of their “opposition” is allied with them. Sure, they occasionally raise a stink about some minor procedural detail or a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the proposed spending increase. But all this is to distract from the ultimate truth: they’re on quite good terms with each other so long as the money keeps flowing to their respective donor bases.
Well, I don’t want the GOP to be friendly with the people destroying our country. Stop crossing the aisle and start digging your trenches.
It was probably the best that could be achieved without them having to make an effort and without having to talk back to the hate media.
I keep wondering why “crossing the aisle” only seems to happen in one direction.
The country is too big, diverse, rich to be run from the top. This is what happens and will continue to happen until we move power back, but even the State governments are too big. I don’t think we face a happy ending.
I don’t think you can control spending without natural interest rates and the right getting serious about actuarial science and what a “public good” is and isn’t.
Who wants to be blamed for popping the asset bubble?
The ship sailed in 2004 at the latest.
Plus what Iwalton said.
While I agree with almost all the comments , I don’t think most here realize how this vote was of great consequence.
If the Pubs could ever get their act together, ( I know, I know – not bloody likely), they could actually force great change by withholding their approval of these ridiculous “continuing budget resolutions” that keep all these destructive far left programs funded. Cocaine Mitch by pushing this piece of crap through perhaps denied the Republicans that opportunity ( except for raiding the debt limit) for another year.
What makes this year very different from the past is that the spending like there is no tomorrow gambit likely and finally hits the financial wall of there ain’t no more money honey – the fit really hits the Shan as my one time neighbor Larry Elder used to say.
That is because the Federal deficit will be so huge this coming year that the Fed again will have to print gobs of money to cover it except that the Fed can’t print gobs of money anymore without sparking again a huge economy threatening bout of inflation.
In short, we as a nation are facing a monumental financial crisis in the next few months and these bought and paid for RINO’S could give a crap.
The Federal deficit this last year came in at 1.375 Trillion officially,( even though some economists say the Federal Debt rose substantially more that), but even that huge deficit was aided by a one time whopping 600 billion increase in tax revenue that will very likely reverse and then some this coming year , plus estimates are that Federal Debt service due to much higher interest rates will grow around 500 to 600 billion and on top of that our great Congress just increased Federal Spending by over 5 percent with this crap bill with the knowledge that Federal Spending generally rises 8- 15 percent in a recession knowing full well we are heading into a full blown recession.
We are very likely then looking at a Federal Deficit north of 3 Trillion and there ain’t no way we can sell enough Treasuries to cover that gigantic mess. No way in hell.
Big time inflation in a seriously depressed economy here we come.
That direction is towards more government control, which means more lobbying for favors, which means more donors for GOP sellouts. Conservative Governance doesn’t offer the same benefits package.
“ I keep wondering why crossing the aisle only happens in me direction”
It ‘s all about the mullah. The Fed has financed a multi, multi – trillion dollar transfer of wealth to the 1 percent and woke Corporate America through QE, ZIRP and other “Financialization” schemes that have produced a staggering bribe cash horde in the billions to bribe virtually every politician and regulating bureaucrat many times over. We have become a billion dollar bribe financed Kleptocracy which can crush financially almost any opposition.
It’s hard to imagine short of a civil war a return to a fair and free democracy where your vote actually counts.
Do you get what Unsk said in #42?
Everybody does it, but any other vector of political analysis is a complete waste of time and only helps the Democrats and the communists.
When are Libertarians and conservatives going to get it?
I would only suggest it’s both wealth AND status. I wonder if Mittens refrains from drinking alcohol as his “faith” requires at those DC cocktail parties. . .
And some people think Ukraine is the problem…
Well, it’s certainly one of the problems.
5 billion for our border? NO CAN DO!
100 billion for Ukraine’s border? Sure thing, Z! Want more?
The American government is anti-American.
That makes it another symptom, not a/the problem.
Like Trump.
Math is hard!
Everytime the Republicans vote for a big budget or spending package, they create more opposition and better funded opposition against which they claim they can do nothing.
The talking filibuster hasn’t existed since the 1970s.
Not true — we’ve seen it done more recently than that.
You are probably confusing a situation where a Senator asks for unanimous consent to proceed to consideration of a piece of legislation and a single Senator raises an objection. But that isn’t a “talking filibuster.”
Rule 22 of the US Senate provides for ending debate (cloture) when three-fifths of all Senators chosen and sworn vote yes on a cloture motion.
Back in 1975 the Senate implemented a two-track system for considering legislation, which allowed the Senate to work on other legislation while another piece of legislation was being filibustered. This ended the talking filibuster because, under the two-track system, either a minority of Senators could prevent the majority from obtaining the 60 votes needed for cloture or they couldn’t. But it was not possible to simply conduct a talking filibuster as was depicted in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
When a Senator wishes to vote on legislation when there exist neither statutory provisions requiring a vote nor unanimous consent are available to constrain debate, Rule 22 provides “cloture” to restrict debate. The first step is for at least sixteen Senators to sign a cloture motion.
After a required intervening day of session, the Senate holds a quorum call one hour after convening and then votes on the cloture motion. Sixty votes (three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn) are needed to invoke cloture, unless the proposal is to change the Senate rules, in which case the votes of two-thirds of Senators present are needed.
If cloture fails, other cloture votes may be taken, as there is no restriction on the number or frequency of cloture motions that may be presented.
If the cloture vote succeeds, a new set of procedures takes effect, including a one-hour-per-Senator limit on debate, an overall thirty-hour cap on consideration of the clotured item, and other rules serving to streamline floor consideration.
Filibuster or “filibuster” or no, eighteen Republican Senators voted for this Democrat wet dream. What on earth do we need Republicans for?
$1.7 trillion = $1700 billion = 17 x $100 billion. In other words, $100 billion = 5.8% of $1.7 trillion.
N.B.: The goal of Putin’s invasion is not to change Ukraine’s borders, but to completely extirpate Ukraine from the family of nations. According to Putin.
If it were just about the Ukrainian border, Finland and Sweden wouldn’t be giving up their proud, 70-year tradition of neutrality to desperately apply for NATO membership. They’re scared what Putin may do next.
A trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Leftists, being what they are, often rant about the US defense budget, carefully avoiding any mention of how small a percentage it is of the total Federal budget.
Regrettably, right-wing isolationists are now using the same, leftist ploy about assistance to the defense of Ukraine.
The irony here is that the US bears more than a little responsibility for the situation. When Ukraine first became independent, it inherited nuclear weapons from the old Soviet government, and sensibly wanted to keep them. It was the US under Bill Clinton, and other Western powers, that demanded that Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons — and hand them over to Russia.
First mistake: we trusted Russians.
Second mistake: we talked other people into trusting Russians.
Third mistake: we promised that we would guarantee their border*.
Fourth mistake: of the last three presidents, two** of them wouldn’t sell the Ukrainians the defensive weapons systems they wanted to buy.
* The Russians promised too, but see mistakes #1 and #2.
** Guess which one did?
I don’t know much about the history of weapon sales to Ukraine, but I’m guessing it’s the same president who didn’t try to sell the Ukrainians out by shoving the latest Minsk proposals down their throats.
Biden came around on the anti-tank systems after the invasion started. The ones Trump let them have were crucial in the early days.
Obama sent beans and band-aids.