Dem
47
GOP
53
In a development that surprises absolutely no one, the House of Representatives rolled over and approved the budget that passed the Senate earlier this week. The vote was 218-214, which means two Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats. Those two Republicans were Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), a moderate who has to worry about getting reelected in a D+1 district, and Thomas Massie (KY), a firebrand who actually stands on his budget-hawk principles.
That means that, as per usual, the Freedom Caucus chickened out. Actually, if we may use a technical term, they demonstrated that they are Trump's little bitches. Now, before you fire up an e-mail telling us that you are deeply offended by that characterization, note that it's not coming from us. It comes from Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI). When reporters said it was clearly Donald Trump who compelled the Freedom Caucusers to fold like a lawn chair after their big, bold words on the budget and the deficit, Van Orden got angry and said: "The president of the United States didn't give us an assignment. We're not a bunch of little bitches around here."
Because the FCers are desperately trying to convince the world that they are not a bunch of cowards with spines of jelly, they have already explained what generous concession they got from Trump in order to secure their votes: Trump said he would use executive orders to get rid of as many renewable energy credits as is possible. At this point, allow us to note three things: (1) Trump was already going to do this, regardless of the Freedom Caucus; (2) the cost of these programs is a drop in the bucket as compared to trillion-dollar deficits; and (3) the day will come, probably sooner rather than later, when the Democrats will put the programs back in place. For these reasons, one cannot take seriously that this "concession" was enough to overcome all the bloviating about wrecking the economy, etc.
There has also been reporting, first from The New York Times, about a second thing that won over the holdouts. Reportedly, after inviting the FCers to the Oval Office, Trump gave them a bunch of autographed swag—photos, and unspecified other stuff. Was it signed bottles of Trump cologne? Trump Bibles? Trump guitars? Knee pads for the next time there are "negotiations," so they'll be more comfortable when they kneel and grovel before him? Who knows.
The point is, if the question is "bitches or not bitches," we choose "bitches;" our evidence is above. Readers are free to disagree with our conclusions at comments@electoral-vote.com. If readers disagree with the verbiage, however, then Van Orden's eX-Twitter account is here, and his contact form is here. To use the latter, you have to be in his district (or, at least, you have to pretend to be in his district, which means finding a fake address in WI-03).
Is this a big "win" for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)? Is it evidence he can herd cats nearly as well as Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)? It could be, and readers might well reach that conclusion, and give him some grudging respect. For our part, however, we just don't see it. Note, first of all, that the bill that was passed was the one written by the Senate. Not that much remains of the House bill. So, it's not like Johnson did all that much to shape the final legislation. Further, it was not Johnson who brought the holdouts into line, it was Trump, with some combination of promises, threats, and merchandise. Would yesterday's outcome have been different if, say, Kevin McCarthy was still speaker? Or if Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was speaker? Or, for that matter, if Staff Dachshund Otto was speaker? We think the answer to all three questions is "no." If we are right, then it means Johnson didn't do anything special.
Incidentally, have you seen Johnson's official Speaker portrait? Here it is:
That's the Washington Monument in the background. The Washington Monument is the nation's most famous phallic symbol, a metaphor for the presidential penis. Just lingering, lingering, lingering behind Johnson at all times. Did NOBODY take note of the symbolic/Freudian implications of this photo?
We did, of course, say that protest is going to be a motif that runs throughout today's posting, so let's get to that. There are 441 members of the House of Representatives (435 voting, 6 non-voting). Under House Rules, each of them gets 1 minute to comment on legislation on the floor of the House. It's only 1 minute because, if each of them avails themselves of the privilege, that's over 7 hours. If it was 2 minutes, then it would be nearly 15 hours.
However, party leaders are not subject to the 60-second limit, and can speak for as long as they wish. This is called the "magic minute" and, in protest of the bill, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) decided to use the privilege to the hilt. Channeling his inner Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeffries held the floor for 8 hours and 44 minutes, which is a record. He spent that time reading from several binders, which were full of personal accounts from Americans who will be negatively impacted by the budget bill. And note that the record Jeffries broke was held by then-Minority Leader McCarthy, who spoke for a little over 8 hours in 2021 in protest of Joe Biden's budget bill. In other words, turnabout is fair play.
Jeffries' performance really communicates three things. First, Democrats don't like the bill. Second, Democrats are aware of, and upset about, the harms that will be done by the bill. Third, with the other party holding the trifecta, there is really nothing that Democrats can do about the bill. There has already been much criticism of Jeffries for not doing more, but those op-ed writers never seem to explain what else he should have done. There's an old line about former Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, from one of the team's minority owners: "There is nothing quite so limited as being a limited partner of George Steinbrenner." That may be true, but in second place is being the minority party in the U.S. House of Representatives.
There is also criticism of Jeffries in the other direction, that he was engaging in empty grandstanding that just wasted people's time. Most of this criticism came from members of the House, and from both sides of the aisle. As regards the Republicans (including Johnson) who took potshots at Jeffries, see the above note about whose record he broke. The Republicans weren't complaining when the speechifying was coming from someone on their side, so they can just shut their yaps. As to the Democrats, most of the carping came from members who made travel plans to be home for the holiday today, and had to rearrange their flights and other accommodations. This is a bad look; it's not too hard to turn this into the conclusion that these members are more concerned about their beer and hot dogs than, say, fighting for their constituents in any way possible. So, these folks should probably shut their yaps, too.
The budget bill, having been approved by both chambers, will presumably be signed today. With any other president, that would be a 100% certainty. With Trump, it's a 98% certainty. Remember, there have already been occasions where he's received the bill he wanted, and yet had a last minute change of heart, and refused to sign (such a situation led to the shutdown that lasted from December 2018 to February 2019). We doubt Trump will do a 180 this time, but we would be remiss if we did not note that it's at least possible with him.
Beyond that, it's time for the two parties to get to work selling their narratives of this bill. Team Trump is already hard at work on that; for example, after the vote, the Social Security Administration sent out an obviously pre-written e-mail blast that began:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.
The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy.
This is not a wholesale lie, but it's some pretty aggressive spin. It does not mention that: (1) a big chunk of Social Security recipients already pay no taxes on those benefits; (2) while 90% of people could theoretically qualify for the tax waiver, the real percentage will be much smaller than that; (3) the tax break will be even harder to claim next year, and the year after that; and (4) the tax break goes away entirely in January 2029, which coincidentally happens to be the month that Trump leaves office.
The Democrats, for their part, are also gearing up to sell their narrative. Certainly, prominent members of the Party will be all over the media this weekend, blasting the bill. But beyond that, the blue team also realizes that it's much less important to win this news cycle than it is to win 2026. So, expect them to keep at least some of their powder dry for use at a future date.
The bad news for the Democrats is that they are generally not as good as the Republicans at communicating their views to the American people. However, there are also two pieces of good news. First, as we have written several times this week, the Democrats have the easier hand to play, because the Republican bill is already very unpopular. Second, the Republicans are much more likely to suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. For example, at a rally in Iowa yesterday, which was meant to be a victory lap, Trump declared that the budget bill would protect Americans from "shylocks and bad people." This is the same man who regularly uses the word "globalist." You can only use so many different well-known antisemitic slurs before you can no longer claim ignorance of their meaning.
Similarly, the aforementioned Van Orden hopped on eX-Twitter after the vote yesterday to share this opinion:
He left that up for several hours and then, after a bunch of blowback, decided to announce he had "made a mistake" and deleted his response. On the other hand, when Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) was asked about the 11 million people who will lose their healthcare, he said it doesn't matter because those 11 million are "Just some Americans that aren't Americans, and that is the illegals." That's a pretty mean-spirited notion, even if it's correct. And if it's not correct, and millions of citizens lose their healthcare, THEN what is Nehls going to say about it?
We really hope that some reporter, when they get Johnson or Van Orden or Nehls on the hot seat, will ask them how they can reconcile their professed Christian values with their support for a bill that hurts the poor and helps the rich. We seem to remember Jesus having a few things to say on that subject, and none of them were "Screw the poor." Of course, even if a reporter asks this question, the Republican "Christian" being interrogated will deflect or will refuse to answer, because they know full well there is no way to reconcile the theology of Jesus of Nazareth with the theology of Trump of Mar-a-Lago. (Z)