What happens when the GOP takes the Senate? – UPDATED
On August 7th I wondered aloud what kind of chaos a GOP controlled Senate would unleash on the nation. There is no longer any need to wonder. Senate Minority Leader and soon to be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is very candid about the mayhem he is going to sow.
Interviewed by Politico aboard his campaign bus, the Senate minority leader offered his vision for the Senate should he be promoted to majority leader: confrontation, manufactured crises, and the ever-present threat of a government shutdown:
In an extensive interview here, the typically reserved McConnell laid out his clearest thinking yet of how he would lead the Senate if Republicans gain control of the chamber. The emerging strategy: Attach riders to spending bills that would limit Obama policies on everything from the environment to health care, consider using an arcane budget tactic to circumvent Democratic filibusters and force the president to “move to the center” if he wants to get any new legislation through Congress.
“Move to the center” is a clever euphemism for “pay ransom in exchange for hostages.” And I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth here – back in 2011, McConnell was asked what lessons he learned from threatening to put the government in default in order to extract concessions from the White House, and he said the debt limit was “a hostage that’s worth ransoming.”
But for a few GOP Senate candidates who thought that “rape” is basically a myth, the Senate would be in GOP hands right now. They’ve cleaned up their act this time and with no apparent desire on the part of the Democrats to keep the Senate – the GOP will be in a majority in both houses after the next election. What does that mean for America?
Some people suggest that “control of both houses of Congress will make Republican act more responsibly, with fewer scorched-earth tactics and forced standoffs, and more reining-in of the wild right wing.”
Those people are known as idiots. What evidence can they point to that suggests Republicans can act responsibly? No. It is going to be a shit storm.
Standoffs over government funding and the debt ceiling will be routine. Welfare boogeymen will be hunted down and food stamps and unemployment insurance and basically anything that can be viewed as helping the poor will be targeted. Sabotaging the economy and attempting to kill off the ACA will vie for primacy.
Obama will have seen his last appointee appointed. I hope none of the Supreme Court Justices croaks (unless it is Scalia). It is going to be a miserable time to be an American as none of the nation’s real business will be conducted. Instead we’ll have wall to wall Bengahzi hearings attempt to soften up Hilary Clinton for 2016.
When the GOP takes the Senate we’ll have the government we deserve. A government that is not the least bit interested in governing.
At least someone is thinking……
Carper believes it will be all sunshine, ponies and kumbaya!
Carper will finally be with his kin again.
No doubt. He and John Carney are really looking forward to all their bridge building paying off.
Perhaps then we may retunr to fiscal discipline and support of our Constitution
LOL. What a joke. Government shutdowns and the debt ceiling brinksmanship are the types of fiscal discipline that will do wonders for the economy.
Shutdowns and brinksmanship require a Democratic spine somewhere.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying the wingnut congress only plays at mounting shutdowns because they know Obama will stop them from blowing up the economy?
GOP control of both houses would be worse, the question is how much worse. Without the senate to hold back house insanity the next stop is the presidential veto, no one is suggesting the Republicans would hold a veto proof majority in the senate. Also there is the ability of both parties to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while shooting themselves in the foot. Inevitably all eyes will be on 2016, and the GOP still has no candidate worthy of the name.
The Dems will play the cloture vote game just like the R’s are now. What is it 66 votes to get something to the floor of the Senate?
“Perhaps then we may retunr to fiscal discipline and support of our Constitution”
LOL, like back in the 2000s? The fiscal discipline of tax cut AND spend and the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act, torture and Gitmo.
So many states have gerrymandered themselves in a manner that will lead to Republican majorities in the House & Senate for the forseeable future. Luckily, Democrats will get the majority of the popular vote for the White House as long as the candidate is seen as a moderate centrist relative to the reactionary loons nominated by the Republicans.
“The Dems will play the cloture vote game just like the R’s are now. ”
I wish. That would require Dem party unity. Repubs have shown how it is possible to dominate government as a minority, but I don’t think Dems were paying attention. More likely some Dems will vote for every crazy-ass GOP bill and it will be up do a Dem president to stop it.
There appear to be more foreign miltary adventures in our future. If we want to go to war, the challenge will be to pass war taxes. Republicans don’t have that kind of fiscal discipline.
“The Dems will play the cloture vote game just like the R’s are now. What is it 66 votes to get something to the floor of the Senate?”
Wrong.
As soon as they get the upper hand, the Republicans will do what Harry Reid never had the guts to do – change the rules. If you think Republicans will be bound by gentlemanly obligation or by the traditional comity of the Senate you are either Tom Carper, or you need you head examined. Perhaps both.
Brock Landers, how, exactly, can Senatorial races (which are state-wide), be gerrymandered?
I’m trying to understand 2700 jobs and $217 million in tax revenue (2013) in the throwing good money after bad context?
If they backed down the tax from 43% to 37% as the casino industry requested, no more bail-outs (where they took money from other budgets/funds) and better long-term health for that revenue stream and those jobs.
Many of those jobs are not specific to casinos. Hotels are hotels; restaurants are restaurants. Every study ever performed has shown that those two adjuncts to casinos destroy that industry in surrounding areas.
In other words, if Dover Downs or Delaware Park (I’m not talking about Harrington, which shouldn’t have a license at all) goes dark, many of those jobs will migrate to hotels and restaurants off-premise. And they’re not such wonderful jobs in the first place.
No, Mr. Really, I’m afraid that’s not a persuasive argument. For many years the racinos enjoyed one of the lowest tax rates among states with gambling. Their failure to invest that money wisely does not qualify as the state’s problem.
What were the racinos poor investments and why shouldn’t Harrington have a license?
Steve Newton, you are correct, gerrymandering does not affect Senate races. My 5:45 time stamp indicates that I was likely bleary eyed when I posted.
The casinos’ poor investments were a golf course (Delaware Park) and an enormous entertainment complex/restaurants/hotel (Dover Downs). They decided to compete with the glut of casinos by trying to make their casinos “destinations.” That was a poor business decision, as we can see.
Harrington shouldn’t have a license because it’s too small, is poorly located now that Maryland has its own casinos, and is the most poorly run of the three. It’s also only a racino because of the favoritism shown it by the General Assembly, many of whom have conflicts of interest by owning stock in the State Fair. If the state was after maximum casino dollars, it would strip Harrington of its license and let the upstate and downstate groups that want another casino bid for the license.
The auction should net several million dollars, and a new casino near either the northern or southern borders will pull in more revenue than one near the western border.
Anything else?
So here’s the thing I want to know about McConnell’s threat to shut down the government — is this being reported in the “mainstream media”? I’ve checked the NYT, USA Today, the LA Times, the WSJ and can’t find this reported there. Has anyone seen this reported on any of the TV news? Because if not, we have a problem. Two problems, really: 1. Democrats who can’t push a story that actually helps them and 2. A media who would have gone 24/7 coverage if this had been said by Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi (refer back to Item 1).