The Freedom Caucus vs McCarthy
McCarthy’s message is simple: he owned the Democrats in the deal. The extremists in his conference aren’t buying it and they’re not keeping their rage to themselves. With the exception of Marjorie Traitor Greene, every far right fanatic who ever gets any press, has been vowing to work to tank the deal. On Fox News Sunday yesterday, McCarthy whined “Maybe it doesn’t do everything for everyone, but this is a step in the right direction that no one thought that we would be able to today.”
It won’t pass without far more Democrats than he and Biden ever imagined they’d need— which could be a drag for Hakeem Jeffries, this being the first big task of his new position as Speaker-in-waiting. Are he and his pretty weak team up to it? McCarthy says he wants the bill voted on Wednesday. First it has to get through the Rules Committee tomorrow afternoon. Chairman Tom Cole is there to help McCarthy but there are 8 other Republicans— including 3 Neo-Nazis (Chip Roy, Ralph Norman and Thomas Massie) and 4 Dems. Roy, Norman and Massie have already said they plan to prevent passage of the bill. If they vote no in committee, Cole will have to depend on Ranking Member Jim McGovern to give him a hand. I bet it would be easier for McCarthy to get the Dems to help him out that to get Roy, Norman and Massie to cooperate. Here’s the messaging guidance Jeffries had sent out to all Dem members yesterday:
They want their members to repeat endlessly that “House Democrats are working responsibly to avoid a devastating default on our debt. Extreme MAGA Republicans are recklessly threatening a job-killing recession.” They’re keeping it as general as they can, hoping to just scare their members about how much worse it could have been and what will happen if it doesn’t pass. Congressional Democrats care; congressional Republicans… not so much. On Face The Nation yesterday, Jeffries’ said that compromise “protects the American people from the types of devastating spending cuts that were proposed by Republicans in their Default on America Act.” That’s exactly playing into the Freedom Caucus’ hands. Just look at Texas extremist Chip Roy’s tweets, quoting for example, Meatball Ron on Fox & Friends yesterday: “Prior to this deal the country was careening toward bankruptcy… after this deal, the country will still be careening toward bankruptcy.” Or South Carolina fascist Ralph Norman’s tweets: “A $4T debt ceiling increase with virtually no cuts is not what we agreed to. Not gonna vote to bankrupt our country. The American people deserve better.” Besides Roy and Norman, Dan Bishop (R-NC), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Ken Buck (R-CO), Byron Donalds (FL), Bob Good (R-VA), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Keith Self (R-TX), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Andrew Clyde (GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and pretend-moderate Nancy Mace (R-SC) had already announced they are “no” votes by the time I went to sleep last night.
Which is just what normal Americans think as well. Washington Post economics reporter Catherine Rampell’s Twitter thread on the IRS rescissions is worth reading. Here it is, in part, in narrative form: “Not good for deficits, since IRS money has very high return on investment. But the effects are sort of real and also sort of an accounting gimmick, at least in the early years… In this new Biden-McCarthy debt limit deal, roughly $20 billion of the $80 billion is officially being rescinded. 25% is not exactly a small chunk… [W]hatever IRS had hoped to spend money on in upgrades, hires, etc. this year & next, it can still do, so long as that spending in aggregate is less than $60 billion. Which it's likely to be in the near term. The agency can only spend so much in a year! Takes time to hire etc. Effectively, that means the cuts to IRS funding can come at the back-end of the 10-year budget window, even if for official budget-recording purposes the cuts are being 'counted' as coming out FY 24/25 budget. The agency is still getting less money in aggregate than it would have absent this deal. In theory IRS/future administrations can fight several years from now to get back additional funding, to finish executing whatever long-term plans may already be in motion. Can they succeed in restoring another $20 billion (or other amount) later on? I don't know. Depends who's in office. And again cutting funding for IRS period is a poor fiscal strategy, since every dollar spent on the agency brings in several dollars in return, per CBO (among others) Upshot is: IRS funding cuts will be scored as expanding deficits. Though exactly how much additional uncollected tax revenue ultimately gets left on the table depends on what future Congresses do, and how much IRS adjusts planning strategy in response to the current deal.”
Axios’ Andrew Solender and Alex Thompson explained the White House strategy for selling the unpopular compromise to the Senate and to House members who want nothing to do with it. They’re trying to push the merits of the bill. In fact 6-issue specific briefings are planned for Democrats today and tomorrow— two each on key components of the plan: spending levels, changes to permitting rules for energy projects, and new work requirements for welfare recipients.
Solender and Thompson wrote that “More than 60 House Democrats have received calls about the deal from administration officials including Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, according to a White House official. All House Democratic leaders have been called, as have the ranking Democrats on House committees, caucus chairs and leading Appropriations Committee members. Some Senate Democrats have gotten those calls as well, the official said, but that outreach will begin in earnest on Monday... Top Democrats are optimistic about being able to make up for enough GOP "no" votes to get the debt ceiling bill through the House— and avoid a catastrophic default by the U.S. government.
“Most are surprised by how modest the concessions appear to be," a senior House Democrat told Axios.
The lawmaker told Axios they expect the "vast majority" of the 213 Democrats in the 435-member House to vote for the bill if progressive Democrats don't actively whip against it.
House GOP sources have said as many as 60 of their members could vote against the package because its spending cuts don't go far enough– meaning it could need dozens of Democratic votes to pass.
A senior progressive aide told Axios they expect all but a few of the most left-leaning Democrats to hold their noses and vote yes.
That's the White House version; we'll see what reality amounts to as the week unfolds. Stealing food off people's tables is a hard thing to make progressives vote for. No problem for someone like Josh Gottheimer or Jared Golden, of course, but Greg Casar or Cori Bush... Pramila, Jamaal, Rashida, Summer, AOC, Ilhan, Cori... I don't think any amount of calls from Jeff Zients is going to get them to back this turd. Let's see what happens with the people between AOC and Josh Gottheimer on the spectrum. Diane Yentel is the president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Progressives in Congress pay attention to her.
Oh, I forgot the Senate. Schumer and McConnell will work to get it through and I don't see the progressives doing anything to really kill it. But the far right extremists do want to kill it-- and they can. Mike Lee (R-UT) just may too. Lindsey Graham has been all over the media whining that the military budget doesn't grow enough so who knows what's he'll do. McCarthy-aligned SuperPAC, American Action Network, started running this on Fox yesterday to give Republicans cover for voting for the bill: