6 ms·

Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding o

Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.

csa 2y ago
> Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? I’m not an expert on this topic, so please take these comments with a grain of salt: 1. The simplest way a budget impasse could start is with internal feuding within the Republican Party. Some Republicans are very aggressive deficit hawks all the time. Some Republicans are only “deficit hawks” when a Democrat is president, but they spend freely when a Republican is president. Note that almost all of the largest budget deficits since 1990 have been under Republican administrations (Covid years under Trump and Biden were wonky and should probably be asterisked). So the pork-seeking Republicans and the deficit hawk Republicans can get into a stand off about what the budget should be. 2. Even if Congress is on the same page, Trump can choose not to sign the budget if he doesn’t get his pet issues addressed. This may seem like something that they should be able to work out beforehand, but his “priorities” change, sometimes daily, often based on who he happened to have spoken to last. 3. Some republicans want the government to break. The playbook here is to break the system in some way, point out that the system doesn’t work, and then make attempts to privatize that system or massively overhaul that system (likely with massive cuts of workers and largesse to contractors). It may seem odd that an elected official strives to make the government not work, but they are able to make that tack work for them at the polls. I think that this is a deep (and warped) issue that is hard for me to explain well.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Also, the last House was wracked with all sorts of deadlock because the Republican majority was only 5 representatives, and having 5 splinter off was incredibly easy. The current House has an even smaller majority of 2 currently, so it's now infinitely more possible for a deadlock to happen.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Exactly this. 2 are nearly guaranteed to break because we have a couple of republicans that always vote no on budget bills because they want massive cuts to everything. That means either the bill ends up completely destroying federal funding, which risks losing centrist republicans or republicans in tight district races. Or the bill ends up trying to win over a few democrats in similarly contested districts, which risks losing a fair bit of republicans that reject any bills that have democrat votes.
    - spacemanspiff01 2y ago
      The counterpoint from what I have been reading is that the Dems will not be helping without concessions, particularly about oversite regarding Elon musk, and doge.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    See, for instance, how long it took them to elect a speaker.
- nyokodo 2y ago
  > massive cuts of workers That is what Trump is doing via DOGE so the burn-it-down camp seems pretty well served, more than anytime since the post-war demobilization anyway. The impasse, if it occurs, is more likely to be with those in Congress that don’t want to reduce the size of government.
  - Applejinx 2y ago
    I think the burn-it-down camp is better described as true believers in free-marketism, and they genuinely expect business to be booming and things to work great when they've cut back on government functionality. DOGE acts different. It seems to me DOGE is about crashing the US economy and/or world economy to attempt wild and radical Silicon Valley theories about alternate societies. As such, its actions are inclined to ruin the fortunes and the business of the free marketeer camp, because those folks are functioning in the real world and have businesses, employees, and pay those employees in dollars. So I don't think the 'burn-it-down' camp should favor DOGE. It is in no way their ally and is there to ruin them, in order to rebuild a society upon somebody else and leave 'em ruined. It's pretty plain to see DOGE's opinion of those people based on its attitude to H1B visas, for instance.
    - nyokodo 2y ago
      > It seems to me DOGE is about crashing the US economy and/or world economy to attempt wild and radical Silicon Valley theories about alternate societies I see absolutely no evidence that the DOGE crowd wants to crash the economy and while they do have a utopian ideology so does the left. Additionally, the DOGE crowd would say they’re trying to dismantle an unaccountable deep state conspiracy that threatens the American economy through an accelerating accumulation of government debt and regulations and has been trying to transform society globally for decades through political, social, economic, and military intervention all to serve the progressive elites. I think both of your views are lacking in charity and perspective, although the DOGE view in so far as I’ve accurately described it has vastly more evidence backing it up.
      - riahi 2y ago
Jtsummers 2y ago
It's happened before. In 2018 the shutdowns occurred despite the Republican hold over both houses.
stonogo 2y ago
Generally a small cadre of extremists within the ruling party holds the entire government hostage for a few days over performative nonsense for future campaign purposes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 2y ago
So the fed defunding whatever they like by fiat gives the Republicans nothing to offer the other side to play ball because anything that they offer could easily be taken away. Its like showing up to the auction with monopoly money. Without the dems they need almost every Republican to agree because their margin is only 5 votes. Historically this is difficult because their ranks now include several morons and extremists most notably the lady who actually believed Jews were responsible for starting wildfires with space based lasers. If a handful of extremists don't ask for crazy nonsense they will still have every hand out for pork. Then it goes to the Senate where it needs 60 votes including dems to pass anything. The first round of crazy if it passes anything might easily end up with something too stupid to pass the Senate without also termination of the fillibuster.
johnrgrace 2y ago
Republicans only hold the house by two seats so to pass something they need to have everyone on board. Any single republican member of congress that wants to hold the whole thing hostage for demands pretty much can.
- starspangled 2y ago
  At that point a Democrat could vote yes to ensure those demands are not met, if that is determined to be the best of bad choices.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? No. American political parties are more akin to continuously-branded coalitions than parties in the way they work in parliamentary systems. There is a minority of House Republicans who will vote down any budget bill because they reject the concept of federal government.
BatmansMom 2y ago
needs 60 votes to pass senate, not just a majority
- aarond0623 2y ago
  Not if they pass it via reconciliation.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Filibuster is just a procedural rule that can itself be removed by simple majority, and it has already been watered down on a case by case basis when that was politically expedient, so there's no hard line there. It's actually kind of amazing that we still have it.

Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.

csa 2y ago

> Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? I’m not an expert on this topic, so please take these comments with a grain of salt: 1. The simplest way a budget impasse could start is with internal feuding within the Republican Party. Some Republicans are very aggressive deficit hawks all the time. Some Republicans are only “deficit hawks” when a Democrat is president, but they spend freely when a Republican is president. Note that almost all of the largest budget deficits since 1990 have been under Republican administrations (Covid years under Trump and Biden were wonky and should probably be asterisked). So the pork-seeking Republicans and the deficit hawk Republicans can get into a stand off about what the budget should be. 2. Even if Congress is on the same page, Trump can choose not to sign the budget if he doesn’t get his pet issues addressed. This may seem like something that they should be able to work out beforehand, but his “priorities” change, sometimes daily, often based on who he happened to have spoken to last. 3. Some republicans want the government to break. The playbook here is to break the system in some way, point out that the system doesn’t work, and then make attempts to privatize that system or massively overhaul that system (likely with massive cuts of workers and largesse to contractors). It may seem odd that an elected official strives to make the government not work, but they are able to make that tack work for them at the polls. I think that this is a deep (and warped) issue that is hard for me to explain well.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Also, the last House was wracked with all sorts of deadlock because the Republican majority was only 5 representatives, and having 5 splinter off was incredibly easy. The current House has an even smaller majority of 2 currently, so it's now infinitely more possible for a deadlock to happen.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Exactly this. 2 are nearly guaranteed to break because we have a couple of republicans that always vote no on budget bills because they want massive cuts to everything. That means either the bill ends up completely destroying federal funding, which risks losing centrist republicans or republicans in tight district races. Or the bill ends up trying to win over a few democrats in similarly contested districts, which risks losing a fair bit of republicans that reject any bills that have democrat votes.
  - spacemanspiff01 2y ago
    The counterpoint from what I have been reading is that the Dems will not be helping without concessions, particularly about oversite regarding Elon musk, and doge.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  See, for instance, how long it took them to elect a speaker.
nyokodo 2y ago
> massive cuts of workers That is what Trump is doing via DOGE so the burn-it-down camp seems pretty well served, more than anytime since the post-war demobilization anyway. The impasse, if it occurs, is more likely to be with those in Congress that don’t want to reduce the size of government.
- Applejinx 2y ago
  I think the burn-it-down camp is better described as true believers in free-marketism, and they genuinely expect business to be booming and things to work great when they've cut back on government functionality. DOGE acts different. It seems to me DOGE is about crashing the US economy and/or world economy to attempt wild and radical Silicon Valley theories about alternate societies. As such, its actions are inclined to ruin the fortunes and the business of the free marketeer camp, because those folks are functioning in the real world and have businesses, employees, and pay those employees in dollars. So I don't think the 'burn-it-down' camp should favor DOGE. It is in no way their ally and is there to ruin them, in order to rebuild a society upon somebody else and leave 'em ruined. It's pretty plain to see DOGE's opinion of those people based on its attitude to H1B visas, for instance.
  - nyokodo 2y ago
    > It seems to me DOGE is about crashing the US economy and/or world economy to attempt wild and radical Silicon Valley theories about alternate societies I see absolutely no evidence that the DOGE crowd wants to crash the economy and while they do have a utopian ideology so does the left. Additionally, the DOGE crowd would say they’re trying to dismantle an unaccountable deep state conspiracy that threatens the American economy through an accelerating accumulation of government debt and regulations and has been trying to transform society globally for decades through political, social, economic, and military intervention all to serve the progressive elites. I think both of your views are lacking in charity and perspective, although the DOGE view in so far as I’ve accurately described it has vastly more evidence backing it up.
    - riahi 2y ago

Jtsummers 2y ago

It's happened before. In 2018 the shutdowns occurred despite the Republican hold over both houses.

stonogo 2y ago

Generally a small cadre of extremists within the ruling party holds the entire government hostage for a few days over performative nonsense for future campaign purposes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

michaelmrose 2y ago

So the fed defunding whatever they like by fiat gives the Republicans nothing to offer the other side to play ball because anything that they offer could easily be taken away. Its like showing up to the auction with monopoly money. Without the dems they need almost every Republican to agree because their margin is only 5 votes. Historically this is difficult because their ranks now include several morons and extremists most notably the lady who actually believed Jews were responsible for starting wildfires with space based lasers. If a handful of extremists don't ask for crazy nonsense they will still have every hand out for pork. Then it goes to the Senate where it needs 60 votes including dems to pass anything. The first round of crazy if it passes anything might easily end up with something too stupid to pass the Senate without also termination of the fillibuster.

johnrgrace 2y ago

Republicans only hold the house by two seats so to pass something they need to have everyone on board. Any single republican member of congress that wants to hold the whole thing hostage for demands pretty much can.

starspangled 2y ago
At that point a Democrat could vote yes to ensure those demands are not met, if that is determined to be the best of bad choices.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? No. American political parties are more akin to continuously-branded coalitions than parties in the way they work in parliamentary systems. There is a minority of House Republicans who will vote down any budget bill because they reject the concept of federal government.

BatmansMom 2y ago

needs 60 votes to pass senate, not just a majority

aarond0623 2y ago
Not if they pass it via reconciliation.
int_19h 2y ago
Filibuster is just a procedural rule that can itself be removed by simple majority, and it has already been watered down on a case by case basis when that was politically expedient, so there's no hard line there. It's actually kind of amazing that we still have it.