In a move that did not get too much attention in the news, 13 Republicans members of the hard right caucus voted with 203 Democrats to defeat by 216-203 an effort to ‘pass the rule’ for three Republican bills to be brought to the floor, thus stymying their speaker Mike Johnson. Without the rule being passed, Johnson will need a ⅔ majority. (In a post back in November, I explained what this procedural stuff is all about.)
Why did they do this? Apparently they are unhappy with the deal that Johnson made with the White House and the Democratic leadership over the spending bills for the budget, because it did not contain all the measures they sought. I can understand the frustration of the hard right caucus. As Kevin Drum writes, the framework of the deal that Johnson agreed to is pretty much the same that former speaker Kevin McCarthy agreed to with the White House eight months ago.
After months and months of demanding cuts beyond the numbers agreed to in the debt ceiling agreement, they’ve now agreed to the whole package: $1.59 trillion plus $69 billion in side deals, for a total of $1.66 trillion. Nondefense discretionary spending will be $773 billion, nearly the same as last year. There will be no 1% cut, no sequestration, and no reliance on a CBO estimate that doesn’t count prefunded programs. Just an ordinary budget bill that’s the same as the Senate bill that’s been lying around for months.
Readers may recall that it was dissatisfaction with that earlier budget deal that led to McCarthy’s ouster and the current deal follows pretty much the same outlines. So this move by the disgruntled Republicans to not ‘pass the rule’ on some other bills is being seen as a shot across the bow to Johnson to warn him that he may not be able to get their support to pass his budget deal. When McCarthy similarly failed to get their support and had to depend upon Democratic votes to do so, that led to the revolt. Whether they will go through with an effort to actually oust Johnson also, given the shambles following the ouster of McCarthy, is not clear. But they. are toying with the idea.
It’s long been standard procedure for the majority to pass the rules and move forward with debate. From 1995 until 2022, a rules vote had only been defeated eight times. That includes six times under former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s four-year run as leader of the House Republicans and two times under former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s eight years as speaker.
But, recently, it’s been a way for members of Congress to send a message to their party leaders. In eight months as speaker, Kevin McCarthy lost three rule votes. Wednesday marked the second time Republicans have defeated a rule vote since Johnson took over as speaker at the end of October.
Republicans have called into question Johnson’s leadership and Wednesday’s vote gave ammunition to his critics who argue he’s been ineffective in unifying the divided Republican caucus. Some legislators are considering taking the job away from Johnson.
Representative Victoria Spartz, an Indiana Republican, told Newsweek on Tuesday night that “people here and there” have been seriously considering ousting the speaker.
“Ultimately, it’s up to us members to be able to pull the gun,” Spartz said. “It’s not even just the Speaker. We’ll have to figure it out and be strong. Ultimately, Mike [Johnson] needs to show that he can win. He definitely inherited a difficult situation, so we’ll judge the result.”
But time is running out with the first set of spending bills due on January 17 and the second set on February 2.
… 13 Republicans members of the hard right caucus voted with 203 Democrats …
Collusion with Democrats?!?!? A cardinal sin amongst the “Freedom” Caucus cohort -- they must vote to expel themselves, NOW!
Well, so much for ‘honor among thieves’.
Not that it really matters, but the title of this post is a bit redundant in that it is repeating itself.
@3
Look up Yogi Berra.
If it’s actually happened before and is being recalled, it definitionally is not déjà vu.
The joke is droll the first time one hears it, maybe, but rather trite after that.
Everyone sane hates them , including their own family members ?
John: as Les Barker said, it is impossible to experience déjà vu for the first time; the first time déjà vu happens, is the second.
RB, such ignorance!
Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu):
It means you feel like you’ve seen it before or been there before or it has happened before though it hasn’t.
(The converse, BTW, is jamais vu where what should feel familiar feels novel)
[OT]
“Les Barker (30 January 1947 – 14 January 2023) was an English poet”
Ah, right. Topical reference. Got it.
I hadn’t heard Les Barker died last year. I guess 76 is a decent lifespan. Probably his teeth that killed him, when I last saw him (late 1990s?) he was the poster-boy for stereotypical bad British dentistry.
And he wasn’t just a “poet,” he was a comedic/satirical poet. “English poet” just makes him sound blah.
If one looked up ‘blather’ in the dictionary, this would be what they find:
“Ultimately, it’s up to us members to be able to pull the gun,” Spartz said. “It’s not even just the Speaker. We’ll have to figure it out and be strong. Ultimately, Mike [Johnson] needs to show that he can win. He definitely inherited a difficult situation, so we’ll judge the result.”
Sounds like one of those morons in suits on the 24 hour sports channels.
Mikey @ 11
Sounds like a stochastic parrot aka “AI” trained to sound like a generic congressman (I say “man” although they do not have the cojones to tell their voters the 2020 election was fair and Trump is a basket case).
#11 mikey
The Australia equivalent would be “At the end of the day…” ad nauseam.