November 14, 2023 10:21 AM UTC

Right Wing Republicans Reject THEIR OWN Federal Funding Proposal

• 4 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

The federal government will shut down just after midnight on Friday if Republican House Speaker “MAGA” Mike Johnson can’t work out a deal that will satisfy the competing factions of both the House Freedom Caucus and “reality.”

In order to keep the lights on in this country, Johnson will likely be forced to resort to the same failsafe that cost his predecessor (Rep. Kevin McCarthy) the Speaker’s Office just one month ago: Asking Democrats to bail his ass out. As The Washington Post reports:

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) faces a rebellion on his right-flank for advancing a plan to end the government shutdown that was originally hatched by the same conservative faction that now opposes it. [Pols emphasis]

On Monday night, GOP leaders announced that they will need to rely on Democratic votes to approve a proposal to keep the government funded, reflecting the growing number of far-right lawmakers who said they would refuse to help Johnson advance the legislation.

Johnson’s plan, pitched this weekend to the GOP caucus, was intended to give conservatives greater leverage in future fights over federal spending. Adopting an idea pitched by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, Johnson’s proposal sets up two deadlines for when different parts of the government would run out of money, which was intended to give Republicans more chances to cut spending in January and February.

The first sentence in this story is a textbook example of a great lede. You almost don’t even need to read any further to understand what is happening in Congress right now.

Johnson is trying to move forward with this two-tiered proposal that was literally crafted by House Freedom Caucus member Andy Harris. But right-wing Republicans, including Freedom Caucus member Chip “Colonel Sanders” Roy, are blanching at actually moving forward with this idea because it doesn’t immediately cut spending. House and Senate Democrats are refusing to agree to any further spending cuts because they feel (rightfully) that they already played this game. Back in May, McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell worked out a federal budget with Democrats and the White House that averted a catastrophic default on federal debts that likely would have launched the entire world into a recession. Here’s more on the plan that MAGA Republicans supported until they didn’t:

Under Johnson’s plan, Congress would fund roughly 20 percent of government agencies at their current levels through Jan. 19. His bill would then fund the other 80 percent of agencies through Feb. 2, also at current funding levels. (These numbers exclude automatic funding for programs like Social Security and Medicare.) At least in theory, that would require Congress to take up funding the government in two distinct steps this winter, which is why some lawmakers refer to Johnson’s bill as a “laddered” or “bifurcated” plan.

This move to split up fights over government funding might seem a procedural matter of little real-world consequence. But Johnson has hoped it could prove a real victory for conservatives. Right-wing lawmakers have long complained that Republican leadership often works with Democrats to jam through huge spending bills right before the Christmas recess, when lawmakers are itching to go home, instead of voting on each part of the government separately. (The federal government is technically funded through 12 different appropriations bills, but when it can’t pass each one individually, Congress typically packages these together in what is called an “omnibus.”)

There are justifiable concerns that this two-tiered proposal will only increase the chances of another government shutdown later. For one thing, trying to pass a budget in two parts makes it difficult to grasp the amount of the total federal budget once both parts are theoretically completed. The other worry is that Congress will feel less urgency to fund programs that are less interesting politically (for example, it is easier to craft a narrative for funding for the Department of Defense than it is for, say, the Food and Drug Administration).

And as Claudia Grisales of National Public Radio reports, House Republicans may reach fisticuffs before they can come to an agreement:

We say it all the time: Elections matter. When you put silly people in charge and ask them to govern, you end up with unserious proposals and petty squabbling at the expense of the American people.

Do Republicans just not want to govern? Or are they incapable of governing?

Does the answer really matter?