From the NYT: ‘We Must Fight Them’: Trump Goes After Conservatives of Freedom Caucus

Trump has a new enemy.

An example of the relatively new concept of primarying.

- Click here for the article.

President Trump declared war on the conservatives of the House Freedom Caucus on Thursday, suggesting Republicans should “fight them” in the 2018 midterm elections if they do not back his agenda.

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast,” Mr. Trump said Thursday morning on Twitter, escalating a fight that began when the conservatives from the caucus blocked his Affordable Care Act repeal last Friday.

“We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” Mr. Trump wrote, apparently making good on suggestions that he would support Republican challengers to lawmakers in his own party who oppose him, a stance advocated by his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.

Friday’s loss on health care rekindled a long-running civil war between the party’s establishment, represented by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who drafted the original bill, and anti-establishment conservatives in the caucus, who thought it preserved too many elements of the Obama-era program.

For more:

- House conservatives call Trump an ungrateful bully after threat to unseat them in 2018.
- Trump can’t stop the Freedom Caucus. He has GOP gerrymandering to blame.

From Roll Call: Republicans Restructure Panel for Selecting Committee Assignments

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about committees, so the staffing process can change as parties see fit.

- Click here for the article.

House Republicans on Wednesday restructured the panel of representatives that select committee chairmen and members, removing at-large seats in favor of more regional slots.

The move was the final piece of plan to restructure the Republican Steering Committee that the conference agreed to last November. The overhaul was part of Speaker Paul D. Ryan's promise to change GOP rules and procedures to give rank-and-file members more input.

The steering committee in December will, among other things, decide the next chairmen of two of the most influential legislative panels on Capitol Hill, House Appropriations and Energy and Commerce.

When Republicans began the restructuring last year, they removed all but one Steering Committee seat set aside for committee chairmen and replaced those seats with six at-large seats. The plan was always to switch the at-large seats for six new regional slots this year in preparation for the 115th Congress.

From the New York Times: Tim Huelskamp, Anti-Establishment House Republican, Loses Primary in Kansas

Committee membership and constituency service still seems to matter, even in the age of the Tea Party.

- Click here for the article.

Representative Tim Huelskamp, a member of the hard-line conservativeFreedom Caucus, lost to a political newcomer on Tuesday in the Republican primary for his Kansas district.

Mr. Huelskamp, who was elected to Congress in 2010 and quickly earned a reputation for frustrating Republican leaders, was defeated byRoger Marshall, an obstetrician from Great Bend, in the primary for the First Congressional District, which covers western Kansas and much of the state’s center.

Mr. Marshall won with the support of business groups and the agriculture lobby, which had turned its back on Mr. Huelskamp after Speaker John A. Boehner had him removed from the Agriculture Committee in 2012, a crucial position for a legislator from a farm state. Mr. Huelskamp was a frequent critic of Mr. Boehner, who resigned last year amid strife with the Republican Party’s right wing.

“Getting kicked off the Agriculture Committee is a crime that can’t be forgiven,” Brian Scheideman, a 52-year-old driver’s education instructor, said after voting for Mr. Marshall in Wamego, The Associated Press reported. “I don’t mind the independent voice, but you’ve got to figure out how to work with people.”

Mr. Marshall had the support of the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Livestock Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to The A.P. Mr. Huelskamp had the backing of the billionaire Koch brothers’ political network, the Club for Growth and conservative colleagues who visited the state to campaign for him.

From The Hill: GOP fights off primary challengers in deep-red Texas

The current crop of house Republicans from Texas are pretty powerful, but primary challengers are set to change that.

- Click here for the article.

Powerful GOP chairmen in deep-red Texas are fending off primary challengers in an election cycle dominated by the anti-establishment fervor gripping the country.

At least four of the Lone Star State’s seven House chairmen — new Ways and Means ChairmanKevin Brady, Rules Chairman Pete Sessions, Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry and Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith — are working to beat back challenges from the right ahead of the March 1 primary.

So is Texas Rep. Bill Flores, chairman of the 170-member conservative Republican Study Committee who was swept into office during the Tea Party wave in 2010.

“I’m sure when you have a chairman title, someone will say that makes you a target, that makes you part of the establishment,” said Flores, a former oil executive who’s squaring off next week with two GOP challengers, former McLennan County GOP Party chairman Ralph Patterson and local businessman Kaleb Smith.

Sixteen-term GOP Rep. Joe Barton, the dean of the Texas delegation and a former Energy and Commerce chairman, has two challengers of his own, while 85-year-old GOP Rep. Sam Johnson, a decorated U.S. fighter pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, is defending his Dallas-area seat against three rivals. And the man taking on Rep. John Carter has questioned the powerful House appropriator and former Texas judge’s conservative credentials.

Even Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, the GOP gadfly and frequent cable TV guest, has a challenger. Rancher Simon Winston has said Congress has devolved into a circus and Gohmert is “one of the main clowns.”

To be certain, all of the incumbents are favored to win reelection. They are better connected, better funded and have better name ID than their long-shot challengers.

Area congressional rep Kevin Brady elected Ways and Means chairman

This is a bit dated, but its added to illustrate some key points for 2305 students regarding Congress. Paul Ryan's election to be House Speaker created the vacancy. It is reported the Ryan pushed for Brady to replace him.

A few odds and ends about Brady, his selection and his goals.

- Rep. Kevin Brady Gains Edge to Become House Ways and Means Chairman.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas) will likely become the next chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after winning an intraparty contest Wednesday. Mr. Brady beat Rep. Pat Tiberi of Ohio in a vote of the House Republicans’ steering committee, a group where new House Speaker Paul Ryan had outsize sway to select his successor as Ways and Means chairman. The choice must be ratified by the full Republican conference, which is set to meet Thursday morning. Mr. Brady will become one of the party’s leading voices on tax, trade and health policy. He said in a statement that he wanted to implement a “pro-growth agenda” for the country.

- A veteran Texas lawmaker is about to become one of the most powerful members of Congress.

The House's newest and perhaps most powerful committee chairman is a 60-year-old Texas Republican who began life in a family of stalwart Democrats from South Dakota and lost his father at age 12 in a courtroom shooting. Rep. Kevin Brady, whose bulldog-looks belie a softer manner, took the helm of the Ways and Means Committee last week. That puts the 19-year House veteran at the forefront of key issues Congress will tackle heading into the 2016 election year, including taxes, trade and benefit programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Brady's Chamber of Commerce career before entering Congress molded a mainstream conservative viewpoint, yet he is well regarded by harder-line conservatives.

- House Ways and Means shuffles subcommittees.

The House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday completed a subcommittee shuffle that was needed after Rep. Paul Ryan left the chairmanship for the speaker's office. New Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) announced the changes that includes adding Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) and adjusts the names and sizes of several subcommittees. "These Republican subcommittee chairs and members will play a crucial role in taking real steps toward fixing our country’s broken tax code, reining in the IRS, reforming the nation’s welfare programs, expanding trade, replacing the Affordable Care Act and saving Social Security and Medicare for the long term," Brady said in a statement.

- Texas Republican ready to tackle ‘broken tax code’

A year ago, when former House Speaker John Boehner was asked about prospects for a sweeping new Republican tax reform plan, he answered with a laugh.

“Ah Jesus,” he said.

That plan, cutting tax rates and stripping away many of the special interest loopholes that riddle the U.S. tax code, still languishes in Congress, one of the many legislative victims of Washington gridlock. Now, under Speaker Paul Ryan, the job falls to Texas Republican Kevin Brady, the newly-installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, where all tax legislation begins. Sitting at a conference table recently in his office as the new chairman, Brady promised a “strong pro-growth agenda” whose chief goal would be “fixing the broken tax code.”

Introducing the Tuesday Group

Just so you know that there are moderate Republicans in the House:

- Wikipedia: The Tuesday Group (of moderate Republican congressmen).
- NRO: The Tuesday Group Still Lives.
- Think Progress: Where Have All The Moderate Republicans Gone?.

What is the House Freedom Caucus?

In short - they are the people responsible for driving John Boehner out of office. More fully, they are the most conservative members of the House Republican Conference and are often argued to be affiliated with the Tea Party. We briefly discussed them in class. They should help you get an idea about what is going on in Congress currently.

Still no front runner for the Speaker.

- The Freedom Caucus’ Unprecedented Insurgency: At least since the Civil War, there hasn’t been a faction fighting both parties at the same time.- What is the House Freedom Caucus, and what do they want?
- Freedom Caucus Forms ‘Fight Club’ in House.
- The Power of the Hard-Line Republicans in the Race for House Speaker.
- The Hard-Line Republicans Who Pushed John Boehner Out.

About the race to replace Boehner

A second option for this week's written assignment for GOVT 2305 is to look at the impact the resignation of John Boehner - who became speaker because he was the leader of the House Republicans. His resignation from Congress was also his resignation from that leadership position. Some background might be in order - the section on parties and committees in Congress covers this as well.

For a look at whose who in party leadership and in what the House Republican Conference is, click here:

- Wikipedia: Party Leaders in the United States house of Representatives.
- House: Leadership.
- Wikipedia: House Republican Conference.
- House: House Republicans.

Here is, roughly, a rank ordering of leaders in the House Majority

1 - The Speaker of the House
2 - The Majority Leader (Kevin McCarthy)
3 - The Majority Whip (Steve Scalise)
4 - Republican Conference Chairman (Cathy McMorris Rodgers)
5 - Republican Policy Committee Chairman. (Luke Messer)
6 - The National Republican Congressional Committee. (Greg Walden)

Now that the top has been - or is about to be - vacated, there will be a struggle to move up. The question will be whether this will be a smooth process where people go up a notch, or whether there will be a power struggle, especially among those members of the more conservative wing of the party who want to increase their influence over policy.

Here are some random readings about what's up as of now - as of tomorrow all this will be dated.

- Politico: Resignation triggers all-out leadership scramble.
- NYT: Candidates in Play for Republican Leadership.
- Politico: Paul Ryan endorses Tom Price over Steve Scalise for House majority leader.
- Huffington Post: Months After White Supremacy Scandal, Steve Scalise May Become House Majority Leader.
- CNN: Majority leader race: Price gets support, McMorris Rodgers declines bid.
- Politico: McMorris Rodgers urges GOP to pull together.
- IndyStar: Tully: GOP ‘Hail Marys’ aren’t enough, Rep. Messer says.
- Roll Call: Leadership Roundup: Scalise Is in; New Talk of a Trey Gowdy Bid.

House Republican leadership team shuffled

For 2305's look at how Congress is organized.

In the wake of Eric Cantor's defeat and resignation as House majority leader, the Republican Conference meet yesterday to replace him. As expected the third in command - majority whip Kevin McCarthy - stepped up to be the new majority leader(second in commend of the party) - which created a vacancy in his old position. So there has to be a race for majority whip.

Here's a description of that process from the Washington Post.

- Click here for the article.

It's a great inside look at the process. Click here for another look at it from the National Journal.

Then came the day’s real drama, the election of majority whip. There were three candidates vying to take the spot that McCarthy was vacating and become the House GOP’s official arm-twister and vote-counter.

There was Scalise, the head of the right-wing caucus within the House GOP. Scalise, elected in 2008, sold himself as a voice of the South, and of red-state Republicans more broadly. Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio), the top Republican in the House, after all, was from a swing state, McCarthy from solid-blue California.

On Wednesday night, Scalise had hosted 40 allies at Acadiana, an upscale Louisiana Creole restaurant in the District. Even in a powerful institution like the House, the strength of a candidacy is measured by its free food. And Scalise’s food was solid.

At that gathering, Scalise also handed out red baseball bats. It was meant to be a message of toughness, that Scalise would be harder to say “no” to than the genial McCarthy. This, apparently, would be a whip for whom actual whips were not a strong enough metaphor.

The other major candidate was Rep. Peter Roskam (Ill.), who has been in Congress since 2007 and served as McCarthy’s deputy whip. Roskam’s pitch was that he had already worked closely with the GOP leadership and would be a candidate of stability.

He spent Wednesday afternoon telling that to the House’s older members, who have been there long enough to remember when therewas stability. Roskam knows “how to run the trains on time,” as Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Roskam’s main campaign strategist, put it to reporters. He offered free food, too: burgers from Good Stuff Eatery, served to supporters in his office.

Scalise won a majority on the first ballot. The story ends up with this ominous note:

But, before Thursday was even over, the House’s two new GOP leaders got a hint of how many other people — outside conservative groups, even other Republicans in Congress — want to lead their troops instead.

At 4 p.m., immediately following the leadership elections, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — who has repeatedly encouraged House conservatives to defy their leaders — sent an e-mail to a large group of conservative House Republicans.

Cruz invited them to meet with him June 24 for an “off-the-record gathering” and “an evening of discussion and fellowship.”
Pizza, Cruz told them, will be served.

Randon items About Eric Cantor's loss

Eric Cantor - the U.S. House majority leader - was defeated in a primary election in Virginia Tuesday. The story caused quite a stir, not only because he was the first House majority leader to not be renominated by his party, but it was not expected. It also suggests the Tea Party - at least on states like Virginia - still has legs.

Here are a few items related to this event and how they illustrate class material:

- Eric Cantor Defeated by David Brat, Tea Party Challenger, in G.O.P. Primary Upset.

Read this for basic background about what happened.

- Cantor internal poll claims 34-point lead over primary opponent Brat.

All campaigns run their own polls in order to figure out how well they are doing, but not all polls are conducted well. The poll was taken in late May, so perhaps it did not take into consideration last minute shifts in Brat's direction - or perhaps it was just wrong.

- Tea Party Cannibalizes Cantor.

The author here argues that the major factor in Cantor's defeat was low voter turnout. We will discuss the importance of turnout - as well as the decision to not vote - at different times in this class. Low voter turnout cuts against the idea that democracies reflect the will of the majority of the people. They reflect the will of the majority of those who show up. In primary elections this number can be especially low. 

The key factor in this upset is a 12% voter turnout—meaning that 6.1% of the local electorate could make a majority. This is a paradise for activists and ideologues—Main Street voters, not so much. No one seriously doubts whether Cantor could have won a general election in his Virginia district. This is purely a numbers game. An unrepresentative turnout makes for an unrepresentative result. And for Republicans, it is perhaps the most pointed reminder of the dangerous game they’ve been playing by stoking the fires of furious conservative populism.

The Tea Party's strength has been due to their members' decision collectively to actually show up and vote.

- Cantor’s Loss a Bad Omen for Moderates.

Cantor was the last Jewish Republican. He may have been inadvertently gerrymandered out of his own district.

- Total Raised and Spent.

Cantor raised $5.4 million to his opponents $206,663. So despite what we say elsewhere about the influence of money in politics - and it remains important - it ain't everything.

From the Hill: House GOP plots anti-reg blitz

For our look at the executive branch - and specifically the bureaucracy and how Congress attempts to oversee it.

- Click here for the article.

House Republicans next week will pass a legislative package aimed at making federal regulations more transparent and less costly to the economy.

The legislation is the GOP's latest attempt to reduce the regulatory red tape that they say is stifling job creation. Republicans have said getting Washington out of the way of companies is the best way to turn around an economy that stills struggles to create jobs more than five years after the Great Recession.

Bills to pare back federal regulations have become the GOP's response to Democratic arguments that Congress should be pushing to extend emergency unemployment benefits and raise the minimum wage. But these bills have mostly gone nowhere in the Senate due to opposition from Senate Democrats.

Nonetheless, GOP leaders next week will bring up the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency (ALERRT) Act, H.R. 2804. The legislation combines four measures proposed by Republicans over the last year.

One piece of the bill, from Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.), would require the head of each federal agency to report each month on rules it is expected to issue, including the reason for the rule and when it will be issued. It would also have to estimate the cost of the rule and its economic impact.

Current law requires the administration to issue reports on regulatory actions twice a year, but Republicans have complained that these reports are rarely on time. Holding said when he introduced his bill that his language is needed to ensure the government's regulatory plans are transparent to companies.

From the NYT: House Approves Higher Debt Limit Without Condition

For our look at the budgeting process - though the debt ceiling is more about paying for items that have already been authorized in the budget.

It also gives an opportunity to look at the bill making process, the consequences of a bicameral Congress, parties in Congress, and the Speaker - among other things.

Click here for the article.

Ending three years of brinkmanship in which the threat of a devastating default on the nation’s debt was used to wring conservative concessions from President Obama, the House on Tuesday voted to raise the government’s borrowing limit until March 2015, without any conditions.

The vote — 221 to 201 — relied almost entirely on Democrats in the Republican-controlled House to carry the measure and represented the first debt ceiling increase since 2009 that was not attached to other legislation. Only 28 Republicans voted yes, and only two Democrats voted no.

Simply by holding the vote, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio effectively ended a three-year Tea Party-inspired era of budget showdowns that had raised the threat of default and government shutdowns, rattled economic confidence and brought serious scrutiny from other nations questioning Washington’s ability to govern. In the process, though, Mr. Boehner also set off a series of reprisals from fellow Republican congressmen and outside groups that showcased the party’s deep internal divisions.

. . .The vote was a victory for President Obama, Democrats and those Senate Republicans who have argued that spending money for previously incurred obligations was essential for the financial standing of the federal government. “Tonight’s vote is a positive step in moving away from the political brinkmanship that’s a needless drag on our economy,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

But outside Republican groups were sharply critical of the speaker. Both the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America, for example, had put out a “key vote” alert urging members to vote against the measure.

“A clean debt ceiling is a complete capitulation on the speaker’s part and demonstrates that he has lost the ability to lead the House of Representatives, let alone his own party,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “It is time for him to go.”

Many House Republicans doubt default will result in economic crisis.

From the NYT:

As President Obama steps up his declarations about the dire consequences of not raising the debt limit, increasing numbers of Congressional Republicans are disputing that forecast, as well as the timing of when the Treasury might run out of money and the implications of a default, further complicating the negotiating situation for both Mr. Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner, who must find a way out of the impasse.

Both men were counting on the prospect of a global economic meltdown to help pull restive Republicans into line. On Wall Street, among business leaders and in a vast majority of university economics departments, the threat of significant instability resulting from a debt default is not in question. But a lot of Republicans simply do not believe it.

A surprisingly broad section of the Republican Party is convinced that a threat once taken as economic fact may not exist — or at least may not be so serious. Some question the Treasury’s drop-dead deadline of Oct. 17. Some government services might have to be curtailed, they concede. “But I think the real date, candidly, the date that’s highly problematic for our nation, is Nov. 1,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee.

Others say there is no deadline at all — that daily tax receipts would be more than enough to pay off Treasury bonds as they come due.

One critics calls them debt ceiling truthers.

30 Republicans are forcing the shutdown

2305 students should remember Madison's comment in Fed 10 that minority factions can clog the administration and convulse the society - here's your proof.

- How 30 House Republicans are forcing the Obamacare fight.
- 8 million to 1 ratio.

From the Fiscal Times: GOP Moderates Rally to Stop the Government Shutdown

Some see evidence that moderates within the Republican Conference might be willing to split with the Tea Party Caucus and possibly join with Democrats to end the shut down - no guarantee of that though.

Several GOP congressmen are openly rebelling against their hardline colleagues—whose insistence on gutting Obamacare has led to the first government shutdown in 17 years.

Going into the third day of the shutdown, the criticisms of this tactic by this group of GOP pragmatists has become louder, offering the first sign of hope that the government might reopen.

The fissure inside the Republican Party has become undeniable, even as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) continues to side with the Tea Partiers who have demanded that the 2010 Affordable Care Act be derailed. Moderates including Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) are pressuring Boehner to ditch the dozens of Tea Party types who have controlled the caucus in recent weeks – but for now that seems unlikely given Boehner’s unyielding statement after leaving a meeting with Obama and Democratic congressional leaders at the White House late Wednesday.

More on the weakness of parties in Congress

At least that of the current Republican Party. The Democratic Party organization is quite string in comparison. It's getting to be quite the meme. Outside pressure groups have more influence on individual members than either the party, or their members. This author suggests that more partisanship would actually be beneficial. This suggests that Boehner's perceived weakness as Speaker is really the result of the influence of outside groups that are more influential to members of Congress - and have a greater ability to benefit their careers - than the traditional party leadership structure.

From the New Republic:

The current Democratic Party, which trims and disciplines the aspirations of its core progressive activists, is a good example of a fairly strong party, which is why it’s consistently frustrating to the left.

But the modern Republican Party is not strong. It’s something more like a loose association of independent forces, including Tea Party–backed members, those with their own sources of campaign money from ideological backers, many with seats so safe that they can happily ignore all their non-conservative constituents, and outside agents like Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, who Businessweek recently described as the de facto Speaker of the House. Many of its politicians have deliberately cut themselves off from all the incentives that traditionally moderate and stabilize politics—earmarks, constituent service (many offices say they won’t help constituents maneuver the ACA), and infrastructure spending. With safe seats, and hearing little dissent at home, they are able to do so. Cutting themselves off from the incentive to build and maintain a strong and viable party is part of the same story.

Consider the difference between House Speaker John Boehner and his shutdown forerunner, Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was a partisan in the original sense, and the first truly partisan Speaker. Although a conservative, he always had strong support from moderate Republicans because he cared about their party’s strength above all else. Many House Republicans felt they owed him their political careers, thanks to early support from his GOPAC. Following his own shutdown debacle, he was able to lead his party into a period of effective bargaining with the Clinton White House that included the budget deal of 1997. Boehner has no such capacity to manage or discipline his caucus, and that’s not mainly a reflection of his personal failings. No one owes him or the party anything. Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor could do no better.

The role of Senator Ted Cruz, who prodded the embers of the House shutdown gang even while he couldn’t do anything meaningful in his own chamber, exemplifies the undisciplined, loose association that the Republican Party has become. Backed by ideological donors including the Koch brothers, he has no need for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and his presidential aspirations are better off without the support of the party establishment. Like his almost-colleague DeMint, Cruz will likely endorse primary challengers to incumbents of his own party, something that was once almost unheard of in either party. That’s the opposite of putting party first.

The way money works in politics certainly has something, though not everything, to do with this splintering. SuperPACs, political non-profits, and other outside spenders do more than just bring the corrupting influence of corporations and wealthy individuals into the process. They also destabilize and decenter the process, replacing the long-term interests of the party with those of individual donors. The Campaign Finance Institute reported yesterday that outside groups outspent political action committees for the first time in 2012. We’ve seen a massive shift in electoral politics away from parties, candidates and formal groups like PACs, and toward outside groups; it should be no surprise that we are now seeing a similar shift in the base of power in legislative politics.

If Boehner is ousted he won't be the first Republican Speaker to suffer that fate

The Week tells us its actually common, Democrats have been less likely to do so - surprising since Democrats have traditionally been argued to be less cohesive than Republicans (though this seems less the case now).

House Republicans have had a propensity, throughout the 20th century, for periodically getting rid of their leaders. 

Tossing out a speaker is in many ways a drastic measure because, unlike other congressional leaders, the Speaker of the House has demonstrable power over the institution. In one of the many ironies of American politics, the House of Representatives, which was intended to channel voters' opinions, has been a top-down, leadership driven branch of government, in contrast to the historical every-Senator-for-himself model on the other side of the Capitol. Due to this top-down structure, the speaker, unlike the majority leader of the Senate (frequently referred to derisively as the majority pleader), can bend the chamber to his or her will. 

Nevertheless, speakers occasionally have had to ward off intra-party threats to their power. These attacks are unusual — in The Ambition and the Power, John Barry compares overthrowing a speaker or minority leader to regicide. And, perhaps surprisingly, all of the successful overthrows have been on the Republican side of the aisle.

The most notable of which was Newt Gingrich, who was originally revered for leading the party back to the promised land of the majority after 40 years in the minority, but then had a very rocky tenure. Gingrich was forced out right after the party's unexpectedly poor showing in 1998.

House Republicans pass bill cutting food stamps

This story applies to our discussion of several items in the class including Congress, Separated Powers the Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare policy making in 2305. It also touches on federalism as we cover it in both 2305 and 2306.

- From the Washington Post: House passes GOP plan slash food stamp funding.
- From the NYT: House Republicans pass deep cuts in Food Stamps.
- From the Hill: House votes to cut food stamps by $39 billion.

The bill is H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. Click here for information on the bill from Thomas.You can also find it here - on govtrack.

We reviewed what the Constitution says about the bill making process in Section 7 of Article 1 and noticed that its says little about what happens within Congress. When we discuss the bill making process we will touch on how it has evolved over time as well as the institutions involved in the bill making process that are not mentioned in the Constitution, most notably committees and parties.

Just so you know, the bill now goes to the Senate and if approved there in the exact same language, it goes to the president for a signature. But this is not going to happen due to the dynamics between the political parties and how these exacerbate the checks and balances.

I'll post a few things below that apply this event to various topics in the class.

The 5 Republican Parties

One of the small handful of points I try to hammer on in class is that the two major parties in the US are best thought of as coalitions of factions that feel enough in common to fit under the same party category. Determining just what those factions are can be a bit of an art.

Here is Norm Ornstein's take on the current factions within the Republican Party and the impact each has on the governing process, as well as the future competitiveness of the party:

. . . I see at least five Republican parties out there, with a lot of overlap, but with enough distinct differences that the task is harder than usual. There is a House party, a Senate party, and a presidential party, of course. But there is also a Southern party and a non-Southern one. The two driving forces dominating today's GOP are the House party and the Southern one -- and they will not be moved or shaped by another presidential loss. If anything, they might double down on their worldviews and strategies.

He argues that the increased influence of the South on the party will help it retain power in the House, but make it less competitive in Senate and presidential elections in the near future:

The South has gone from being a trace element of the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s to becoming the solid base and largest element of today's GOP -- and its driving force on social and economic issues. And while some Southern Republicans such as Lindsey Graham remain fierce internationalists, the South, and the House, have become the epicenter of anti-defense and anti-diplomacy isolationism typified now by border Senator Rand Paul.

So here's the Republican dilemma: The House and Southern Republican parties are more concerned with ideological purity and tribal politics than they are with building a durable, competitive national party base to win presidential and Senate majorities. In most cases, they are in no danger of losing their House seats or their hegemony in their states. They will be resistant to changes in social policy that reflect broad national opinion; resistant to any policies or rhetoric, including but not limited to immigration, that would appeal to Hispanics, African-Americans, or Asian-Americans; and resistant to policies like Medicaid expansion or Head Start that would ameliorate the plight of the poor. They also will be more inclined to use voter-suppression methods to reduce the share of votes cast by those population groups than to find ways to appeal to them. I see little or nothing, including a potential loss in 2016, that will change this set of dynamics anytime soon.

The Hastert Rule and the Bill Making Process

Here's a story that provides some detail for our discussion of the US bill making process tomorrow in 2305. It involves the Hastert Rule - or the majority of the majority principle - which is a rule House Republicans have used since the mid 1990s whenever they are in the majority (it is named for former Speaker Dennis Hastert, but is said to have been developed by Former Speaker Newt Gingrich).

The rule simply requires that the Speaker of the House will not allow a vote on a bill unless it is supported by a majority of the majority - meaning a majority of his party. This prevents the minority from brining up a bill they support that has enough support from majority party members to potentially pass the House.

The rule effectively prevents the minority party - Democrats in the House - to have the ability to pass anything. It allows the Speaker to behave less the presiding officer of the House than the leader of his party.

Here's more on the subject:

- GOP House 'Insurgents Pushing to Weaponize the Hastert Rule."
- What the "Hastert Rule" figth tells us about House Republicans.
- Hastert Rule pushed by insurgent Republicans.

Remember that the Constitution says nothing about what happens prior to the presentation of a bill to the president for a possible signature, with two exceptions. Bill for raising revenue have to be introduced in the House and the bill has to have passed both the House and Senate.

Everything else presumably falls under the ability of Congress to determine its own rules of procedure. The current bill making process has evolved over the time into the comprehensive process that exists today.

What I cannot address - and cannot readily find though I'm sure such a thing exists - is a historical description of how the bill making process has evolved over time. I'd like to locate such a study.

One thing that needs to be emphasized as well is that the comprehensive bill making process that is described in most textbooks - see this one for example - is not how many bills actually become law. The actual process varies from time to time depending on circumstance.

One of the best ways to see this is by looking at the legislative histories of actual bills that have become law - you can find these in Thomas, which is run by the Library of Congress.

Here's a list of the laws which have been enacted so far this year. We'll walk through a few to see what the actual bill making process looks like. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example, seems to have spent no time in committee.