What getting a majority in one branch of Congress actually means
The GOP seems to have taken the House, at least according to reports like this (see also this). The MSM keeps saying it’s “on track” to take it or “on the cusp” of taking it, but it does seem to be imminent.
People also keep pointing out how incredibly narrow the majority will be, and that’s certainly the case even if the GOP gets a few more seats. They can’t afford any defections when they vote on something. Then again, passing legislation isn’t really the point in this Congress – stopping the passage of legislation by the Democrats is. The GOP wouldn’t have been able pass legislation in Congress even if the majority had been much bigger in the House, unless it also had a majority in the Senate. And not just a bare majority in the Senate, but a sizable one, sizable enough to to avoid a filibuster.
Or, of course, they could do what the Democrats tried so hard to do during the last two years and only failed to do because of two people, Manchin and Sinema: do away with the filibuster. I rather doubt even a majority GOP Senate could get a majority of votes to do that, and you’d suddenly see not a single Democrat voting for it.
And of course even then Biden would veto virtually everything any GOP Congress managed to pass in both houses, if it wasn’t favorable to the left. Legislation passed by the GOP could only get by if the Republicans had enough votes to override the veto, and that was virtually impossible. So of course there was never going to be any significant GOP legislation in the coming Congress even with a predicted red tsunami.
And yet taking over the House is still enormously important – taking it over by any margin – because it gives the GOP leader, who almost certainly will be McCarthy, power to set the agenda of the House.
I wonder how many voters even realize that. I’m not sure how many people don’t seem to comprehend why the roles of Speaker and Majority Leader are so important:
The speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the speaker may use their power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. They also chair the majority party’s steering committee in the House…
On the other hand, when the speaker and the president belong to opposite parties, the public role and influence of the speaker tend to increase. As the highest-ranking member of the opposition party (and de facto leader of the opposition), the speaker is normally the chief public opponent of the president’s agenda. In this scenario, the speaker is known for undercutting the president’s agenda by blocking measures by the minority party or rejecting bills by the Senate…
The speaker’s powers and duties extend beyond presiding in the chamber. In particular, the speaker has great influence over the committee process. The speaker selects nine of the thirteen members of the powerful Committee on Rules, subject to the approval of the entire majority party. The leadership of the minority party chooses the remaining four members. Furthermore, the speaker appoints all members of select committees and conference committees. Moreover, when a bill is introduced, the speaker determines which committee will consider it.
It looks like McCarthy will become Speaker. I’d like to see someone more conservative in there, but as long as McCarthy blocks the left that’s still very important.
A danger for the GOP is the usual danger: ripping itself to shreds in battles between its two main wings. Another danger is inaction – or worse, capitulation to the Democrats. Having the majority by only the slimmest of margins increases the need for unity as well as the chances for crippling disunity, and having control of only half of one branch of government means they have no power to change anything. Their power, if they manage to exercise it successfully, will be to halt the most wretched excesses of the Democrats and to set the agenda. Setting the agenda should include shining the light of day into the dark corners of things like the COVID response, Russiagate, the persecution of January 6th defendents, and the corruption of the Bidens. And of course, the forces arrayed against them will be formidable and will include the MSM and some moderate Republican House members.
But gaining the majority is a victory that was necessary. Without it, and with a slightly larger majority in the Senate than before, the Democrats might have been more successful in realizing their dreams of ending the filibuster, institutionalizing the relaxation of voting security for the entire country by passing HR1, adding new Democrat-laden states such as DC and Puerto Rico, and increasing the total number of justices on the court in order to pack it with leftist judges to negate the current conservative majority.
If I could have only one chamber, I’d prefer the Senate; but at least having the House provides a measure of stop gap from the most egregious acts coming from the White House. However, the Senate is who provides advice and consent for nominations; and control over that seems important right now. While a GOP House can follow Pelosi’s precedent and conduct one sided hearings, they’ll be toothless without equal hearings in the Senate or a DOJ that will ignore referrals for enforcement, as the DOJ did under Obama.
It seems as though most supporters of MAGA would prefer that McCarthy, McConnell, and McDaniel might all rapidly vanish together into the sunset, although this is no more likely than a time of porcine aviation.
‘Hearings & Investigations’ without any enforcement seem like ‘make work’ since they reveal little that isn’t already known to anyone paying attention.
the dems march almost single file, behind the left, eventually, see green nude eel,
they didn’t get HR 1, but they got the equivalent in enough states, even in red states like texas, major cities like houston and dallas are warzones,
America’s current quick march toward the gallows will be replaced with a more appropriate “slow march”; a ceremonial pace, as used for funeral marches.
Congressional Republicans will block the Democrat’s most radical proposals but will propose little to nothing that would actually reverse our Ship of State’s course. But there is a profound reason for proposing legitimate legislation that has no chance of passage, since it establishes that the Republican party has offered legislative solutions that democrats have blocked. Of course that’s been the case any time the republicans have had the majority in either house.
Republican sponsored legislation that doesn’t include substantial incentives for democrats will of course be unlikely to pass the Senate and are certain to encounter Biden’s veto. As before, that will offer the Republicans a perfect excuse to do nothing, which will in turn allow the Democrats to accuse the Republicans over the next two years of having nothing to offer. The Uni-Party knows exactly how to work their rigged game.
And Vlad is wining in Ukraine. Moreover, Roosia will remain forever in Kherson, Kharhiv, Donbas, Luhansk, Crimea, and Zaphoriska. Count on it.
That’s what makes predicting the future such a snap, it is just so obvious.
already schumer is pressing for the equality amendment, to snuff out traditional marriage, then amnesty 15-30 million by 2024, who knows what other injury against the body politik they have inflicted by then,
Unfortunately my Representative is a Democrat these days. I’m not sure how to get my opinions to the new Speaker and Majority Leader. The House has the power of the purse. Appropriations bills must originate in the House. I would love to see the House return to regular order, as it used to be, proposing spending bills department by department and restricting amendments to things germane to that department. Let the Senate howl and cry about it, and let Biden veto and shut down departments one by one. It would be lovely.
Also, people are talking to Lee Zeldin about running to chair the RNC. Sounds great.
And another point.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/11/16/speaker-mccarthy-has-a-promise-to-fulfill-n1646308
McCarthy has only one weapon which he won’t use: the money. He can stop the CR and go back to Regular Order: which he won’t do. He could use the debt increase to force concessions out of Biden: which he won’t do. He could refuse to bring up all of Biden’s extra-budget requests like Ukraine giveaways: which he will not do. Etc. Etc. You place too much confidence in legislative nonsense.
Kate said ~ And another point.
Guess we’ll see how much ‘dirt’ they have on McCarthy.
Will he actually do anything or not.
I’m not sure it’s a question of what dirt they have on McCarthy. He’s never been a MAGA type or Freedom Caucus type. However, he has the power to Make the House Great Again. Maybe he can be persuaded to do at least some of it.
JackWayne:
I don’t know where you get the idea I think the GOP House will DO much of anything except stop the Democrats from doing things like passing HR1 and admitting new Democratic states.
My bar will be as low as it was when Paul Ryan led the House: I want regular order for legislation, and not one monstrous omnibus passed in a panic at the end of the fiscal year.
Another thing: the House should have standing to challenge Biden spending hundreds of millions on a loan bailout without Congressional authorization.
The first big thing that can be done is to end proxy voting and require all votes be placed in person.
Kate:
It’s customary for appropriations bills to originate in the House, but it’s not required. The Constitution only requires revenue bills to originate in the House.
Ah, thanks, bof.
Paul Ryan promised “regular order” and didn’t do it. McCarthy needs to do better than Ryan.
I’d rather have a Senate majority, but only if that majority would march lockstep in opposing Biden’s horrible judicial nominations. But that’s not the Republican way–Romney, Murkowski and Collins all voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. So 52 Republican senators get you nothing.
Winning their House is huge. But I suspect we’ll soon find identify 3-4 RINO congressmen, who will happily cross the aisle to frustrate the Republican majority. Here’s some free advice: (1) stay away from abortion–it’s a states rights issue; (2) pass clean legislation protecting Social Security and Medicare in the event of a government shutdown–make the Dems block that legislation–they love to hold Social Security and Medicare hostage when shutdowns loom; and (3) once you take social security and medicare off the table, defund the deep state through “regular order” spending bills. Americans care about getting their social security checks, they don’t care about adding 80,000 new IRS agents and they certainly don’t care about a single thing done in Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, or the whimsically named Justice Department. Return to Reagan: strong national defense, low taxes, less regulation, strong property rights. It’s an idea so crazy it could work.
They will never do away with the filibuster.
It is a fake rule that never prevents a bare majority from getting what it wants. They do away with it on a one-time basis any time they please and more often then ever you read about it in the news. As long as we believe the narrative that it’s a real check on the Senate majority, we will keep getting rolled by the Uniparty.
It gives them deniability with their own voters. “I was in favor of XYZ but we didn’t have the votes to break the gosh-darn filibuster, send me back to Washington and I’ll keep fighting”. Note that these “mavericks” who supposedly stop their own parties from achieving what the base wants are never punished in any way by their own party, and they never switch sides.
It gives individual Senators and the minority leverage to extract valuable concessions. They finally got to a price Manchin would accept for his vote (then threw him away like Kleenex since he won’t be in the Senate much longer). For McCain they didn’t bother to meet him where he was, because the majority did not actually want to repeal Obamacare*, but he provided cover for all the others with their constituents so they didn’t have to be on record opposing repeal. Sinema and Manchin provided the corresponding service for their side. Note that these “mavericks” were never punished in any way by their own party, and they never switched sides.
Without the filibuster Senators become more accountable for what they vote for. The Senate cannot be reformed from the outside: it can only be changed by cleaning them out and replacing them with people who want to be effective, instead of appropriating taxpayer money for their clients and patrons.
*When I worked for a big health insurance company, every time Republicans won elections, some employee would ask the CEO at the next town hall if we were worried about Obamacare repeal. And we were always told we were never planning for Obamacare repeal, since the possibility was so remote. This company and all its competitors donated many millions, every single dollar to incumbents of both parties. They knew what the real situation was.
Gingrich’s “Contract with America” was popular and effective. We know that approach works, and it’s a very relevant and applicable approach to the task at hand. It’s obvious why the GOP hasn’t used that technique since. They don’t want to be transparent and purposeful. We saw this the minute they had the chance to overturn or fix the ACA.
There’s a lot of personal, financial gain in failure theater.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Republicans are working so hard to conserve conservatism:
Twelve Senate Republicans voted with Democrats on Wednesday for the far-left “Respect for Marriage Act,” which is reportedly designed to provide federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages.
Lawmakers voted for the measure 62-37 after a bipartisan group of senators made changes to the bill to include a clause about religious liberty. With the amendment agreed upon, the bill will go back to the House before going to President Joe Biden. The White House has expressed support for the measure.
The 12 Republicans who voted for the bill include Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Todd Young (R-IN). ..
@Rufus:It’s obvious why the GOP hasn’t used that technique since. They don’t want to be transparent and purposeful. We saw this the minute they had the chance to overturn or fix the ACA.
There’s a lot of personal, financial gain in failure theater.
For me it was farm subsidies. The Contract Republicans had got rid of them by 1996, and in 2002 they were all back as a “response” to 9/11. Food security, donchaknow. Of course President Bush signed it into law. And they’ve been there ever since…
“…actually means?”
Lots ‘n lots of EOs, most likely…though whether it would be more than it would have been is unknown…but given “Biden”’s profound love for the genre unlikely…
Levin has a fairly good piece about the “Red Wave”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fhkvbocrmk
All financial expenditure bills must orginate in the House. ALL. Per the Constitution.
All this talk about failure to capture the Senate is irrelevant. Biden still has the veto pen.
The best way is to starve the Biden administration of funds with which to operate. His Cabinet, a bunch of freaks, and his and their department’s policies are ruining the USA.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I am curious to know whether you were aware of this from Kevin McCarthy and other House members during the campaign.
I fished out my copy of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative.” It doesn’t say all spending measures must originate there.
I found this post educational. Thanks, Neo.
Kate,
I suspect the framers did not believe the honorable members of Congress would be so foolish as to spend more than they had gained in revenue. Of course they had the examples of the Bank of England, plus the fiat Continental currency and other experiences from history to guide them, and I gather that even Hamilton was still in favor of responsible borrowing, not generating wild deficit spending.
One branch but all the same players, somehow think we are going to be disappointed
}}} For me it was farm subsidies. The Contract Republicans had got rid of them by 1996, and in 2002 they were all back as a “response” to 9/11.
Remember “Wool and Mohair Price Supports”, that they finally got rid of after a couple decades of effort…?
…And then managed somehow to get almost entirely re-installed piecemeal over the next decade? Yeah, didn’t hear much on that last part, did you…? :-/
I’m with Heinlein. One of his suggestions in “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” was a bicameral legislature, one house which passes laws with a 2/3rds supermajority… the other house REPEALS laws/regulations with a 1/3rd minority.
Seems like a great way to clean house against this kind of bullshit.
Remember this, “come the revolution”.
Also, remember “Stupid Budget Tricks”.
There is a concept, “GAAP”: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/gaap/
Governments — State, Federal, Local — are all immune to requirements to utilize GAAP.
This leads to AAAAAAALL KINDS of stupid chicanery on their part.
NY State, for example, has a “Balanced Budget Amendment”. The BBA is utterly worthless, though, despite sounding wonderful, because, well, “no GAAP”.
Case in point, more detail below, but “tl;dr”:
In 1991, NYS had a budget shortfall… So, did it cut spending? No. Did it increase taxes? No. Instead, it sold Attica Prison… To Itself. Then, because, of course, they needed someplace to keep the prisoners who were incarcerated there, it rented it back… From Itself.
Yes, it’s as stupid as that sounds. But that’s allowed, because governments can pull shit that would put a CEO or Corporate President in jail so fast that the air would pop in their wake as they moved to jail. :-/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220715201612/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09granof.html
So: again, “Come the Revolution”, remember, governments must be forced to utilize GAAP in all budgeting, spending and revenue processes.