Comments

Tillis retreats and the Big Beautiful Bill advances — 24 Comments

1. “But somewhere between the vote and the final tally, [Sen. Ron] Johnson miraculously conceded and voted ‘YES.'”

   I asked venice.ai “why did ron johnson vote for the obbb?” It replied

   Senator Ron Johnson initially voted against the “Big, Beautiful Bill” because he was concerned about the significant increase in national debt that the bill would cause. He felt that the spending cuts proposed in the bill did not sufficiently offset the massive spending and tax cuts, which he argued would primarily benefit the wealthy. Johnson, known for his fiscal conservatism, pushed for deeper spending cuts and was initially unwilling to support the legislation in its current form

   However, Johnson eventually changed his vote to support the bill. This shift was likely due to negotiations and concessions made by Senate leadership to address his concerns. The holdouts, including Johnson, secured a vote on an amendment that aimed to make it more difficult for single, childless able-bodied people to receive Medicaid, which was a key demand for Johnson.

2. I find Sen. Thom (sic) Tillis a self-important jerk. His actual name is Thomas Roland Tillis. Thom? Whaatt? Why not just plain Tom, like the many other other Thomases?

3. Tillis had never hinted about not running up until now. That suggests to me that his internal polling must be horrific. It looks as if Tillis may have Flaked himself.

   That said, he’s more dangerous now than he was before. If he’s not running again, he’s free to be as big a thorn in Trump’s side as he can possibly manage.

   The worst-case scenario would be if he could convince three other GOP Senators to switch parties with him, which would give the Dems control. I’m not sure I see that happening, though if the big donors get desperate enough to stop Trump, I can’t rule it out, either. All they would need is Tillis and 3 more.

   More plausibly, if Tillis could convince 3 liberal Republicans to consistently vote with him to support the Dems, they could effectively take Trump’s legislative agenda hostage, and make confirmation of appointments impossible.

   (In fact, if Fetterman refused to play ball, they might need 4 more GOP Senators for some things.)

   Again, that sounds improbable, but the big corporate donors hate most of the MAGA agenda. So that’s a lot of money and power available to be directed if it came to that.

   I hope it doesn’t come to that, of course. But I can’t rule it out.

4. Cicero: Mr. McAn would like a word with you.

5. Tillis was sending out campaign emails and texts right up to the moment he withdrew from the race. Given that he barely scraped through re-election in 2020, he was a risk for losing in 2026. Republicans in North Carolina are disgusted with him, and Democrats were going to vote for Roy Cooper or Wiley Nickel or anyone with a “D”after the name.

6. We’re all counting on you Kate to deliver NC.

7. I wish I had that kind of influence, Mike Plaiss!

   I’m getting emails from a group of Republicans pushing to fix the remaining problems with the voter rolls in NC. It might get done. The legislature gave control of the state and county election boards to the state auditor. He has promptly appointed Republican chairs all over the state. Previously, Dems controlled all election boards and refused reforms.

8. Just saw that the Senate voted to KEEP illegals on Medicaid. A number of Rep voted to Keep the spending. They rail about spending but vote to keep spending. They are scared that they might get voted out by their Dem voters – – Ha Ha Ha.
   Keep giving illegals money/services and they will stay

9. @SHIREHOME: The vote to keep illegals in Medicaid is for the benefit of health care providers. Doesn’t make it less bad, but that’s why the GOP made the concession.

10. Oh noes

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/megabill-mystery-new-solar-wind-tax-surprise-republican-senators-rcna216120

    Keeping people that are ineligible would tend to drain a program that is running out of money faster dont you think

11. If the BBB keeps illegals on Medicade it just lost my support. I’ll write our 2 FL senators to vote against it….not that my opinion matters a whit.

12. Its that parliamentarian again the one that said the inflation reduction act was kosher

    If you keep your own moneys its bad if you give away someone elses money its good

13. The parliamentarian has no power over the Senate and was overruled just a month ago on something the GOP majority actually cared about. Legacy media didn’t notice but DataRepublican did.

    The GOPe does not care who gets money or how much provided their cronies do, and that’s why nothing changes.

14. yes, but she is treated as ‘the lady in the lake’ as I spelled out elsewhere, so perception of authority is as actual authority,

    from that NBC link, some Senators don’t understand ‘why their wallet is getting light’ in spite of themselves,

15. @miguel:but she is treated as ‘the lady in the lake’ as I spelled out elsewhere,

    You are getting too cryptic for me. The Senators know perfectly well they can overrule the parliamentarian with 51 votes because they do it when they want. They know perfectly well she has no vote, does not take the chair, and is a consultant who serves at the pleasure of the Majority Leader.

    If she actually mattered she would be replaced when a new Majority comes in!

    Her “authority” is pure narrative for avoiding accountability. We ought to call it out and hold the people responsible who actually are responsible. The people who ask us for money and votes and claim to be accountable to us, but continually sell us out.

    The Left knows this too! They demanded the parliamentarian be overruled in the Biden Administration. She’s useful to both parties.

    And when the topic was gasoline powered cars in May, the GOP had no trouble overruling her with 51 votes.

    But Medicaid for illegals? Sorry, parliamentarian said our hands are tied. Send us money to get us a bigger majority in 2026 and we’ll see what we can do then.

    The Senate has overruled the guidance of the parliamentarian, a nonpartisan staffer who interprets the Senate’s rules, and voted 51 to 44 to overturn a waiver allowing California to set its own air pollution standards for cars that are stricter than national regulations. The Senate has only overruled its parliamentarian a handful of times in the 90-year history of the role.

    The Senate also voted to revoke two waivers related to heavy-duty trucks. One allowed California to mandate zero-emission trucks, and the other permitted stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks.

    Congress is using a law called the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, as a mechanism to revoke the federal waivers that allowed California to set these rules. The House previously approved three resolutions to revoke the waivers.

    But there are significant questions about whether this use of the CRA is legal; the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian, who serve as referees within the federal government, both determined that it is not.

    The GAO’s opinion is merely advisory. The parliamentarian’s guidance is also non-binding, but the Senate has traditionally followed it. While disregarding this advice is not unprecedented, it’s extremely rare. Historically, leaders of both parties have feared that if they act unilaterally to change the Senate’s norms, the other party will do the same when they’re in power. That’s exactly what happened in 2013 and 2017, when first Democrats and then Republicans deployed the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees.

    “Today it’s all about California emission waivers. But tomorrow, the CRA could now be used to erase any policy from an agency that the Trump administration doesn’t like at a simple majority threshold,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday evening as he tried unsuccessfully to derail the vote. He argued that the CRA could subsequently be used to repeal any policies the White House — including future administrations — doesn’t support, including waivers related to Medicaid or reproductive health care. “Republicans should tread carefully today,” he said. “What goes around comes around.”

    Republicans have embraced a legal argument that the CRA can be used in this case. Speaking Wednesday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that Republicans were not changing the Senate’s broader rules or norms, and suggested other reasons for Democratic opposition. “I think a lot of Democrats support an electric vehicle mandate,” he said. “In fact I think they’re somewhat frantic at the prospect of losing this ‘Green New Deal’ policy.”

16. shes a pretext, for what they want to do, and still there are a bunch of Senators who voted for the Green Nude Eel light, who say these modest trimmings are too much, why did they pick Mcconnell’s Lieutenant, Thune as leader, because other choices challenged the arrangement,

    I used the metaphor from a Nolan film about municipal corruption for a reason, one could use Capra’s frame of reference but who would be Jefferson Smith, perhaps Rand Paul, who seems to be on a quixotic quest perhaps he is,

    there seems to be Brezhnev rule operating, when Progs advnace on one front, no matter dangerous to the body politic it should not be reversed, hence the lawfare Cavalry, the artillery of he Judges and the NGO’s

    such has been the practice for 40 years, even Reagan couldn’t eliminate
    the Dpartment of Indoctrination, he thought under Bennett it could be reformed, but that wasn’t it’s purpose it was a sinecure, to the teacher’s union, and we see what Al Shanker’s creation has done with it,

17. According to our other senator, Ted Budd, what the bill does is eliminate the scam which allows states to overcharge Medicaid and then use the money elsewhere. This may mitigate the damage of some states’ paying for illegals.

18. @Kate:According to our other senator, Ted Budd, what the bill does is eliminate the scam which allows states to overcharge Medicaid and then use the money elsewhere.

    I think I found his statement, here.

    In North Carolina, the federal govt’s share of the cost of a traditional Medicaid recipient’s care is 64%. But for an able-bodied adult recently added under Medicaid expansion? The federal gov’t pays 90%. Meanwhile, more federal spending means higher taxes & more debt.

    States inflate their payments to providers & divert some of the federal funds to backfill their own state budgets for their political pet projects. That money is supposed to be for “Health,” but it can be a slush fund. That means higher premiums & costs for you.

    If so this is hugely misleading statement and does not describe a “scam” for “overcharging” Medicaid. Nothing in Medicaid is set up to provide a constant % of Federal coverage of costs.

    He’s spreading the entire Federal funds over every individual equally to get that number, and that is not how Medicaid works: different populations have higher or lower premiums.

    “Inflating” payments to providers refers to a state’s ability to pay more or less than Medicaid fee schedule. In most states, Medicaid is mostly delegated to private insurers who contract at whatever they can negotiate. That’s not on the table from anything I’ve seen. In my day job I get regular updates on what changes are contemplated for Medicaid and I cannot reconcile those with what he is saying here.

19. Had too many 429 errors to edit statement. States all set their own Medicaid fee schedules and can deviate from them. He’s calling this “inflating payments” but there is no Federally set provider payments in Medicaid, it’s delegated to the states. If removing this feature is on the table I’ve not heard of it.

    This is what I see on the table as of yesterday. I can’t match anything there to what Budd is describing, but maybe you can.

20. And Mark Robinson isn’t running, so the GOP has a chance to hold this seat, as long as it refrains from nominating Laura Trump.

21. Robinson said, in January, that he wouldn’t run for senate, and I hope that’s true.

22. Niketas posted : “@SHIREHOME: The vote to keep illegals in Medicaid is for the benefit of health care providers. Doesn’t make it less bad, but that’s why the GOP made the concession.”

    You are talking thru your Democrat hat.

    Keeping illegals on Medicaid does NOT benefit health care “providers” other than Medicaid mills that provide crappy care at best.

    As a now-retired oncologist, my practice LOST money on every Medicaid patient. But what can you do? They have cancer and you cannot shrug them off.

23. @Cicero:You are talking thru your Democrat hat.

    LOL!

    As a now-retired oncologist, my practice LOST money on every Medicaid patient.

    The big provider groups and big hospitals don’t “lose money on Medicaid patients” any more than Walmart loses money on having discounted prices. They pretty much HAVE to take Medicaid patients and they do not reject the revenue stream from Medicaid. Check the financial statements of the biggest provider groups or hospitals in your state, they are frequently public record, and you will see how large the Medicaid revenue line is. About 20% of Americans are on Medicaid right now. No large group can afford to leave them out.

24. From Miguel’s’ link: “In a twist, Republican senators insist they didn’t know how or why the tax was inserted into the bill they were rushing to pass. No senator took credit for — or defended — it.
    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Budget Committee chairman, who released the 940-page bill, said he was unsure of where that provision came from.”

    Keeping a change-log is standard operating procedure for software producers, even Wikipedia. Why, apparently, is there none for all legislation to record who put in what and when it was done?

    You would almost think they didn’t want to know.

    And how was it caught just in the nick of time?
    Was someone actually paying attention during the reading ordeal?

    FTR, I think all bills should be read aloud, with all legislators required to attend, the doors locked until it is finished. And some kind of serious punishment for failing to be there.
    There are lots of pizza delivery places in DC to take care of them.

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/washington-dcs-pizza-delivery-monitor-alerts-to-secret-israel-attack/

    Okay, this part was kind of funny.
    Apparently the pizza tracker has been a real thing for quite a while.

    Not confining its analysis to pizza, the account noted three hours later that a gay bar near the Pentagon had “abnormally low traffic for a Thursday night,” and said this probably pointed to “a busy night at the Pentagon.”

    While far from scientific, the Pentagon pizza theory “is not something the internet just made up,” The Takeout, an online site covering restaurants and food trends, noted earlier this year.

    Pentagon-adjacent pizza joints also got much busier than usual during Israel’s 2024 missile strike on Iran, it said, as there are “a multitude of fast food restaurants in the Pentagon complex, but no pizza places.”

    Pizza deliveries to the Pentagon reportedly doubled right before the U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989, and surged again before Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

    How can you have fast food without pizza??

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>