Speaker Mike Johnson Floats Stop-Gap Bill to Dodge Year-End Omnibus

[mystery-ak]

Speaker Mike Johnson Floats Stop-Gap Bill to Dodge Year-End Omnibus

Sean Moran1 Nov 20234
2:20

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Wednesday floated a stop-gap spending bill to Senate Republicans to avoid pushing through an omnibus spending bill.

Johnson told Senate Republicans that he would like to fund the government through January 15 to avoid a last-minute omnibus spending bill. The Speaker said he talked about a “one percent reduction” in any spending bill, according to Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND).

Politico had previously floated April 15 as another spending deadline. This would give Congress two months to hash out a long-term spending deal.

“I think he realizes, and we all do, that without a sooner deadline, we won’t start working sooner,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) remarked.

Politico wrote:

    Still, Johnson’s plans are far from the last word on any major issue. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy could not get a stopgap spending bill without Democratic votes, and House Democrats will not embrace a blunt spending cut in a short-term funding bill. What’s more, Schumer and McConnell will have plenty of say in how this year’s spending fights will play out.

    Republican senators asked questions of Johnson during their Wednesday visit with him, but one was mostly quiet: McConnell. The GOP leader “was just taking it all in” as Johnson spoke and held court with Republican senators, according to Cornyn.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) met with Johnson before the meeting with the Senate Republican Conference. Sens. Johnson, Scott, and Mike Lee (R-UT) regularly meet with House conservatives.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/01/speaker-mike-johnson-floats-stop-gap-bill-to-dodge-year-end-omnibus/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So another CR, even after changing Speakers?? 

Who'd have thunk it?

[kevindavis007]

So another CR, even after changing Speakers?? 

Who'd have thunk it?

This should be interesting.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This should be interesting.

At least we're now pushing for a full 1% reduction rather than the lousy 8% reduction we were pushing at the end of September.

Clearly, House Republicans are playing chess rather than checkers....

[Hoodat]

So another CR, even after changing Speakers?? 

Who'd have thunk it?

Yeah, that's what happens when you allow an Establishment hack squander nine months of legislative time.  For the short time that Johnson has been in there, he has already done more than McCarthy ever did.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yeah, that's what happens when you allow an Establishment hack squander nine months of legislative time.  For the short time that Johnson has been in there, he has already done more than McCarthy ever did.

It was the conservatives who rejected the 8% cut McCarthy and Roy put together instead of the 1% Johnson is now pushing. It was staring them right in the face, and all they had to do was vote "yes".  But they refused, because they didn't want any CR.

If that is how you define "already done more", then you're playing for the other team.

Let me just ask this - why doesn't Johnson just say that the House refuses to accept anything less than 8% cuts, and won't sign a CR otherwise?  Why isn't he playing the hardball that everyone here was pushing for and predicting he'd play?  That's why all this happened when it did, right?

So why isn't Johnson playing hardball?

[Hoodat]

It was the conservatives who rejected the 8% cut McCarthy and Roy put together instead of the 1% Johnson is now pushing.  If that is how you define "already done more", then you're playing for the other team.

We'll see.  Let's see where we are after nine months of Johnson compared to nine months of McCarthy.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We'll see.  Let's see where we are after nine months of Johnson compared to nine months of McCarthy.

Well, after just one week of Johnson, we're at a 7% larger CR than we had with McCarthy.  Hate to think of where we'll be with nine more months of that kind of "hardball" from Johnson.

And to be clear, I'm not slamming Johnson.  I'm slamming the shallow thinking that believed changing Speakers under these circumstances would be anything other than a shit show that would make us worse off.

The Speaker is bound by the voting sentiments of the members, and that didn't change.  Johnson will be just as much a prisoner of that razor-thin majority and divided caucus as was McCarthy.

Though I still think McCartgy deserved a hell of a lot more credit than he got for getting the moderates on board with that 8% cut.  The fact that it was the so-called conservatives who killed is is just a sad little joke.

[Hoodat]

Well, after just one week of Johnson, we're at a 7% larger CR than we had with McCarthy.  Hate to think of where we'll be with nine more months of that kind of "hardball" from Johnson.

Uh, no.  There was no 8% reduction CR when Johnson took the Chair.  Nice try though.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Uh, no.  There was no 8% reduction CR when Johnson took the Chair.  Nice try though.

There was one when McCarthy was Speaker.  Then the "conservatives" killed it, and gave us...this.

I can't fathom a legit argument for how that's an improvement.

[Hoodat]

I can't fathom a legit argument for how that's an improvement.

It's not a matter of fathoming one.  It is a matter of purposely excluding one.  You have chosen a single criterion that bolsters your case while excluding all others.  At the same time, you have placed a time restraint on one party that did not exist on the other.  And finally, you take something that never existed (i.e. a passed 8% cut) and use it as the standard that Johnson must meet.

[Hoodat]

Let's not lose track of where this whole debacle started - the debt ceiling vote back in May.  Here was the moment where Republicans had maximum advantage.  And McCarthy squandered it, not only for the remainder of 2023, but for all of 2024 as well.  We could have ended the $80+ billion for weaponizing the IRS at that moment.  But McCarthy essentially gave every single thing to the Democrats that Pelosi had given them in 2022.

Johnson has been in there for less than two weeks, and he's already found an easy way to strip $14 billion from that money.  That's a win in my book.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's not a matter of fathoming one.  It is a matter of purposely excluding one.  You have chosen a single criterion that bolsters your case while excluding all others.

I'm not the one who chose fiscal restraint/continuing resolutions as the criteria.  As best as I can tell, that was the main issue motivating those who took down McCarthy.  And I read plenty of folks here saying "no more CR's", and thinking they were going to get that with Johnson.  You can run through all those threads and see people saying either "Now we don't get any more CR's", or the more cautious among those saying "I'll wait to see if he supports a CR before judging him."  So now, we're going to move the goalposts and say "nah, a CR really wasn't that important"??

At the same time, you have placed a time restraint on one party that did not exist on the other.

Well that's just plain wrong.  I'm not placing a time constraint on anyone.  I'm pointing out that McCarthy got the moderates to agree to 8% cuts, and also got McConnell to agree to stop a Senate bill and go off that House bill instead.  And it was the "conservatives" -- same basic folks who bumped off McCarthy -- who killed that bill in the House, because every other Republican in the House voted for it, so it would have passed.  As far as I'm concerned, that's a Pottery Barn rule.  The faux-conservatives killed a CR with 8% cuts because they thought it was a bad idea?  Then they sure as hell had better do at least that good, or better.  And they clearly have not.  That's just a flat-out failure regardless of time limit.  Or as Chip Roy said, they're now eating the shit sandwich they deserve for killing that bill.  The problem is that the rest of us have to eat it too.

And finally, you take something that never existed (i.e. a passed 8% cut) and use it as the standard that Johnson must meet.

This is not about Johnson.  It's not his fault that he can't meet or beat the bill that the faux-conservatives killed.  It's their fault, for first killing that bill, and then for the ridiculous replacement of a Speaker by another Speaker whose hands are going to be just as tied by the tiny margin and divided caucus.  It's the fault of those who think "being tough" and "standing up for what you believe" overcomes votes.  It doesn't.  And the faux conservatives in Congress should have known better.

I despise stupid conservatives in Congress as much as I despise leftists.  Maybe more, because I expect the guys on the team to try to score against us.  What I can't stand is when we score own goals because we don't think shit through.

[Hoodat]

I'm not the one who chose fiscal restraint/continuing resolutions as the criteria.  As best as I can tell, that was the main issue motivating those who took down McCarthy.

That's really the best you can tell?  Because there are numerous posters here including myself who have explained to you in no uncertain terms that the reason McCarthy was taken down is because he broke his word and did not honor what he agreed to do, and then compounded it by publicly daring Gaetz to do something about it.

[DefiantMassRINO]

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's really the best you can tell?  Because there are numerous posters here including myself who have explained to you in no uncertain terms that the reason McCarthy was taken down is because he broke his word and did not honor what he agreed to do, and then compounded it by publicly daring Gaetz to do something about it.

I was speaking of substantive policymaking, not backroom grudges.

McCarthy and his allies said he didn't break any promises -- Gaetz and a few others said he did.  The difference apparently being whether McCarthy promised to actually do certain things, or just to try to do them.  The former doesn't make much sense to me because McCarthy's powers were not unlimited.  He couldn't force agreement among Republicans to pass bills out of committee when the Republicans in those committees didn't agree on what bills should be passed, and everyone knew that.

I personally think what happened is that a majority of the caucus was sick and tired of watching Gaetz & Co. have disproportionate influence, and so resisted a lot of those alleged promises.  McCarthy -- rightly, in my view -- chose to side with the rest of the caucus over a small minority.

But whatever.  Point is, the continuing resolution issue was -- if not the only issue -- at least one of the most important ones to some members of Congress, and certainly important to a lot of folks here as to why they didn't like McCarthy, and what they were looking for from Johnson.