It's hard to explain how dysfunctional the @HouseGOP is, and the degree to which their own internal divisions are superseding every normal function of government. But I'm going to try with a short story about this week in the house. Thread:
1. First: We operate on a 9/30 fiscal year but the (McCarthy) led house couldn't agree on how to fund prior to. They tried to just say "cut everything by 30%". That didn't pass. So they said "let's just fund at current levels for 45 days". That cost McCarthy his job.
2. For context, when Dems had the majority we got all our appropriations done by August 1 so the Senate could finalize and POTUS could sign. @HouseGOP still hasn't done that.
@HouseGOP 3. Also, you may recall this summer the @HouseGOP threatened to default on US debt unless we agreed to future spending rules. A deal was struck that passed the House and was signed into law to do so. The 30% cut was not consistent with that law. (AKA, it was illegal)
@HouseGOP 4. By contrast, the straight 45 day continuing resolution that cost McCarthy his job was legal (in the sense that it did not violate the June agreement and bought us time to do so). OBEYING THE LAW WAS A RED-LINE FOR THE @HOUSEGOP. So they fired McCarthy.
@HouseGOP 5. They then used the first 20 days of that 45 day period to fight over a new speaker. Should we pick someone who hates gay people, fought to overturn the election or creeps on his son's porn? It took a while, but the @HouseGOP finally said YES to all three.
@HouseGOP 6. That leaves a lot of work to do by a party that doesn't like laws, is at war with itself and an inexperienced leadership team. But off we went. Last week, we were supposed to vote on transportation funding. Rs couldn't agree so Johnson never brought a bill to the floor.
@HouseGOP 7. (This isn't just a Johnson problem. McCarthy previously chose not to bring an agriculture funding package to the floor because Rs couldn't agree. Still don't have a path on that one.)
@HouseGOP 8. This week, we were supposed to vote on a funding package for our financial services & general government. Minutes before we were supposed to vote on that yesterday they pulled it on account of internal squabbles too.
@HouseGOP 9. Note: ALL of these bills violate the law we passed last June. But having discovered that Ds won't vote to break the law, they are trying to pass these with all R votes. But they're big mad at each other so even that's not possible.
@HouseGOP 10. Now to the question on the mind of every libertarian troll who's read this far. "If government is going to run out of money and you aren't even voting on bills to fund it why are you wasting my tax dollars in DC?" Well, here's what they did bring up for votes this week:
@HouseGOP 11. A bill to prevent the government from using the word "latin-x" - a bill to cut WH press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's salary to $1 - a bill to defund the office of gun violence prevention - a bill to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -
@HouseGOP 12. A bill to cut SEC Chair Gary Gensler's salary to $1 - a bill to defund the office of gun violence prevention - a bill to prevent the government from developing greenhouse gas disclosure rules - a bill to eliminate 50% of the budget for the consumer product safety commission.
@HouseGOP 13. These things aren't urgent. They aren't helpful. And they aren't going to become law (See: laws require Senate + POTUS approval). But they keep the idiot wing of the @HouseGOP from turning on their rookie manager. And waste 435 people's time on the House floor.
@HouseGOP 14. And so now we are 7 days from a shutdown. Still no path to fund. Still no sign of anyone in the @HouseGOP willing to stand up to their extreme fringe. Still no discernible leadership talents from their new Speaker. Right now it's annoying. But in 8 days, its disastrous.
@HouseGOP 15. Because if they can't get their s**t together, 8 days from now soldiers, air traffic controllers, food safety inspectors, IRS agents, border patrol... all go without pay. Some will be furloughed. Food, heating, housing assistance. Every government function.
@HouseGOP 16. PLEASE @HouseGOP. Grow up. Stop fighting with your brother and sister in the backseat. Either act like the adults you claim to be or at least have the dignity to go to your room so the adults can babysit your sorry selves. Too much is at stake. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Some credit to the fall of Rome to not only the deprivation of the society and the loss of morals, but also to the rampant homosexual behavior that was condoned by the society" is remarkably not the stupidest thing Mike Johnson says in this article. cnn.com/2023/11/01/pol…
The whole thing is disgustingly homophobic and intellectually vapid; this is a man who has opinions and doesn't even cherry pick facts that fit them - he cherry picks other opinions.
But the dumbest part - and one that is readily testable if he wants to prove otherwise - is when he says "Homosexual behavior is something you do, it’s not something that you are". What? Who among us woke up one day and CHOSE their sexuality?
The New York Times deserves credit for these three paragraphs about @SpeakerJohnson . Religion is what politicians talk about when they don't want to talk about ethics and we must all insist that pols are not allowed to elide the latter with the former. Brief thread:
1. Source: "Johnson has put his faith at the center of his political career, and aligned himself with Christian nationalism." nytimes.com/2023/10/27/us/…
2. First, to state the blindingly obvious, pick any major world religion and I can come up with a dozen intra-denominational wars that have been fought over how to interpret the text. It is historically ignorant to suggest that the text OF ANY RELIGION is unambiguous.
So apparently the @HouseGOP is going to bring a bill to the floor this week to modify the Natural Gas Act and remove the requirement that approval of LNG export terminals be in the national interest. This is a very, very bad idea. Let’s discuss:
1. First, as I noted 2 years ago, most of the recent volatility in natural gas prices has been because of our greater exports. This isn’t surprising - international markets are more volatile and an export terminal is just an arbitrage play.
2. Second, as I discussed with @SecGranholm last week as the US economy decouples from fossil fuels, there is a great pressure by oil & gas producers to push for more exports. Not because they care about national interest, but because they want to make money.
As we careen ever closer to a government shut down, it is worth reading this to understand that we do not have a D vs R problem; we have a House R vs House R problem - and more specifically, a Kevin McCarthy problem. americanprogress.org/article/house-…
Some brief, recent history is in order. Recall that last June the @HouseGOP was threatening to default on our national debt unless the White House made concessions to their crazy fringe that they couldn't get through a normal democratic process.
@HouseGOP The debt ceiling is a manufactured problem; Congress approves revenue and spending levels and then separately has to vote on whether to pay our bills. If we don't trust ourselves to get the math right the first time, we shouldn't be in this job. See here: chicago.suntimes.com/2023/5/31/2374…
Morning musing: climate change is fundamentally a problem of *energy* policy, not environmental policy. Prior to the passage of the IRA we never really framed that right - and even now, we still focus too much on the latter and too little on the former. Thread:
1. Of course climate change is an environmental problem; one need only look to Hawaii this week to see. But that's true only in the way that falling off a building is a health problem. It's the prior decisions that led to this predicament.
2. When we emit a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, you don't immediately see sea level rise, forest fires, ocean warming, etc. There is bipartisan support to address those environmental consequences but still far too little focus on the original, energy-policy driven root cause.
OK - so I want to respond to this question that popped up in my feed, which I think is asked in good faith. Why do we think that investments to reduce our fossil fuel use will be economically painful? Why do we think this is a tradeoff between the environment and economy?
1. Suppose that a company was investing in a technology that increased workforce productivity and allowed it to generate the same revenue with fewer labor hours. Would we assume that lower labor = lower revenue or praise them for boosting labor productivity?
2. How about if another company invested in new capital plant, before their existing capital was amortized to grow revenue. Would we stipulate that company must be losing money since they are investing in more capital or praise them for boosting their return on capital?