The Republican House

If early statements and promises are any indication, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives will continue being the Party of No, with meaningless investigations of any Democratic member of the Biden Administration that they feel they can target, as well as quite a few legislative initiatives [which will likely go nowhere] to undo any laws and policies that the Republicans don’t like. So far, I’m not aware of a single constructive suggestion from the Republicans, and I don’t consider tax cuts for corporations and the wealth as positive, not given the state of both deficit and debt.

It’s not as though Kevin McCarthy has much choice, given the size of the “Freedom Caucus” and the number of election deniers within the House Republicans and the fact that Trump, the biggest liar and election denier of all, has announced he’s running for President again.

The Freedom Caucus appears likely to make it somewhere between difficult and impossible for McCarthy to come up with and pass a unified and constructive Republican agenda, even though there are areas, such as immigration reform, that could gain enough Democratic votes to pass. But because there’s so much anger among Republicans, it’s likely that “revenge” actions against the Democrats and President Biden will take up much of the next year, and the year after that will be consumed by pre-election positioning.

All that suggests a singularly unproductive Congressional session, and I could be wrong (I certainly have been before), but the anger and negativity of most elected Republicans will make getting anything done beyond the bare minimums (if even that) extraordinarily difficult.

10 thoughts on “The Republican House”

  1. Postagoras says:

    Yep- we can expect a lot more Hunter Biden than infrastructure and energy policy from the House.

    With such a thin majority, there’s a small possibility that the Democrats could enact legislation with a handful of Republican crossover votes.

    1. Lourain J Pennington says:

      … if there are people who care about the country, instead of revenge/getting re-elected.

  2. geoff soper says:

    V. true. But in terms of initiating a counter response to a midterm Republican seizure and control of the House, can someone explain why e.g. making Puerto Rico a State, isn’t being vigorously promoted.

    Obvious result being the v.likely addition of 4 new Democratically inclined new Seats… with the concurrent losses of 4 Seats from the States receiving the 4 last Seats as apportioned after the 2020 Census.

    Overall, something like 6, somewhere between 4 and 8 in fact, additional Democrat Seats so created. The exact no’s needed.

    Plus,as seems most likely, an additional 2 new Democratically inclined Senators, adding to the current mid-term Democratic
    , albeit 50 or 51, majority total

    Easy to say. But, why isn’t this option being rigorously pursued and implemented. It’s the logical answer. Solving the undesirable, and not-so inevitable, mid-term loss of Democrat control of the House. And neatly so, the numbers involved seeming tailor made.

    Further, it would be far better to control the direction of legislative discourse/initiatives. Causing outraged reaction from Republicans and their initiatives… these last otherwise seemingly fixed on grudge-motivated motives.

    (((And a fair bit of redistricting required, for the 4 last-Seat 2020-Census-apportioned States… etc.)))

    1. Ryan Jackson says:

      Because for better or worse our current leadership is too concerned with slipper slope fallacy to take more drastic actions.

      There’ll be an inane level of “But if we do this, what stops the Republicans from doing (Something) that gives them more votes when they’re in power?!”

      It’s the same nonsense I heard from even well educated people when you point out FDR threatening to Pack the Supreme court if it didn’t cooperated with his legislature is something Biden should have learned from and done the moment the overturn of Roe v Wade was leaked.

      1. Chris says:

        Even if Biden had wanted to expand the court, given the stance of both Sinema and Manchin, it wouldn’t have happened. Both of them have indicated they don’t support getting rid of the filibuster (which would be required to pass the law necessary to redefine the size of the court), and a lack of support for expanding the court itself (even if the filibuster wasn’t a problem).

        Given those constraints, Biden pushing to do so would just rally the right wing with no major gain for the left.

  3. geoff soper says:


    … thanks for your answer.

    I am really ignorant here. Maybe even autistic. I was hoping for something like a listing of logistics of actions required; including precedents to be satisfied and provisions required; minimal timeframe possibilities explored; why no-one seriously considers anything like this, but is caught up in the sameold expectations and reactions.

    Time and opportunity is awasting, and as far as I can tell nothing effective is being (from my sic autistic seeming viewpoint) cogitated or mooted, let alone actively pursued

    I would vastly like some elaboration here… of why impossibilities exist, and dictate no-serious considerations of to my mind immanently desirable effects

  4. Bob Deen says:

    I’m wondering when some smart centrist GOP house member will think outside the box. You need 218 votes to become Speaker. They don’t all have to be from the same party. It would only take about a half dozen Republicans to ally with the Democrats and take the Speaker’s gavel. The deal could look something like this. The Speaker would be one of the Republicans, and would rule as a Republican, with GOP majority committees and leaders. But the Democrats could force any bill to the floor if, say, 10 members of each party asked for it. Maybe part of the deal would be to freeze out the so-called Freedom Caucus crazies from chairmanships, or possibly even committee memberships.

    What would the GOP centrists get? The ability to ignore the crazy wing of the party and maybe rebuild a rational party again. Plus one of them would be Speaker. The rest of the GOP, except the crazy wing, would be mad at first but likely go along eventually. Many of them would likely be privately relieved to rid themselves of the crazies.

    What would the Dems get? First, they have to realize that there’s going to be a GOP Speaker, regardless (sadly). But it doesn’t have to be McCarthy. They would be able to still get bills through and avoid total gridlock, as long as they have a modicum of bipartisanship (which they’d need to pass the Senate filibuster anyway). So they really give up nothing and get a great deal.

    What would the country get? Their best shot at a functional government for the next two years.

    Maybe I’ve been reading too many of your books, this sounds like something one of the protagonists would cook up…. 😉

    1. I’ve actually wondered about something along those lines.

      1. Bob Deen says:

        Still know anyone in Congress?? 🙂

        1. Not on the personal level that I once did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *