What's Going to Change?

[Southern Yankee]

Let's assume the predictions come true and the Republicans gain 6 - 8 Senate seats and 50 - 60 House seats. So the House shifts and the Senate gets closer. What will likely happen through legislation over the next two years? Will anything really change?

[Jas09]

Somewhat hard to predict, but that won't stop me.

The big change will be the budget procedure. In fact, there could be a pretty magnificent battle in the lame-duck session to get a budget passed for next year. Following budget battles could center on whether health-care funding is included. Shutdowns, veto threats, the works. Did you enjoy 1995?

From where I'm sitting, the other big question mark (and it's perhaps just a faint whisper of a hope) is the outcome of the deficit reduction committee. If they propose some sort of 50-50 split on tax increases at the top and spending cuts (SS reform in particular), I could see a 40-60 or 33-66 compromise being worked out. Working against this is current GOP rhetoric, but it's barely within the realm of possibility that the realities of governance will allow them to see this as an opportunity similar to the Welfare Reform environment.

Cap & Trade is obviously dead, as is card check, and meaningful immigration reform. DADT will die by executive fiat or court decision rather than legislative action, most likely. Future court appointments (if any) will be slightly more contentious (which could be an issue if Ginsberg's health takes a turn).

[Euphonious Polemic]

Investigation into Obama's citizenship
Investigation about ACORN
Investigation into Obama's ties with terrorists like Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Investigation into Muslims in the White House
Investigation about allegations that Obama murdered Vince Foster
Investigation into Obama's pocket lint

[Chefguy]

A run on ink for the veto pen. House approves, Senate rejects. More squabbling just like before. Republicans accomplish little, if anything. Next election cycle, everybody complains the country is going in the wrong direction (again), and the balance of power changes (again). In the 2008 election, people wanted the government to take more control of problems. Now they want the opposite. By 2012, they'll want it to change again.

[appleciders]

I doubt it. I think that the economy is on the upswing, not because of or in spite of government action but simply because that's how a business cycle works, and the Republicans will take credit for it. I think 2014 is the soonest that the Democrats will be able to retake the House, and that's assuming that a Republican takes the White House and people feel surprised when their health care is all of a sudden repealed.

[Gatopescado]

Very little. I just hope (some specific) Bush Tax cuts are made permanent.

[Rhythmdvl]

Gerrymandering.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

In the 2008 election, people wanted the government to take more control of problems. Now they want the opposite.

If they want problems to take control of the government, they're gonna get their wish.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

If they want problems to take control of the government, they're gonna get their wish.

Ha!

[Lord Ashtar]

Nothing. Not a thing.

[Wesley Clark]

Not much. The GOP ran on a platform of 'balancing the budget' despite having no real method of cutting spending to offset the trillions in tax cuts they want to spend. The deficits in 2010, 2011 and 2012 will still be over a trillion each.

Boehner wanted to cut some non-discretionary spending. So he plans to cut about $100 billion in a year, and about $340 billion over a decade. But the deficits are running 1.3 trillion or so, and the GOP is pushing tax cuts of $100 billion or more a year. So the deficit will still be over a trillion.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues...-Agencies.aspx

For what it is worth, the health reform bill and student loan reform probably saved over $300 billion over the decade. But meh.

The real question to me is what happens to the tea party after this? They will find out that a GOP house isn't going to do anything to shrink government or balance the budget. Do they become apathetic in 2012 or do they go even more radical?

What happens when grade school math dick slaps the tea party across the face and they realize that minor cuts to discretionary spending + massive tax cuts =/= a balanced budget?

[Fear Itself]

John Boehner gets to smoke in Congress again.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Lord Ashtar

Nothing. Not a thing.

Well...The *names* will change, at least...

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

What happens when grade school math dick slaps the tea party across the face and they realize that minor cuts to discretionary spending + massive tax cuts =/= a balanced budget?

I strongly suspect the Tea Party base is mathsphobic.

[Der Trihs]

They'll probably just blame Obama and the "liberals".

[gonzomax]

Boehner, the lachrymose leader, said yesterday that earmarks would not be eliminated after all. It was a very important principle to be fought for until they won control of the house. Now it is not important after all.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Boehner, the lachrymose leader, said yesterday that earmarks would not be eliminated after all. It was a very important principle to be fought for until they won control of the house. Now it is not important after all.

Here's a cite - apparently he said he approved of a temporary moratorium on congressional earmarks but would not pursue a complete ban - as reported by Capital Hill Blue, where he was quoted as saying on Fox News

BAIER: The guys in line to be Chairman [of the Appropriations Committee], they’re big fans of earmarks.

BOEHNER: There’s gonna be an earmark moratorium, it’s pretty clear.

BAIER: Why not an outright ban?

BOEHNER: Only because some things that people call earmarks here wouldn’t classify as an earmark to the American people.

So what the hell is he talking about? I don't understand his comment to FOX news. No ban on earmarks, only a moratorium because "some things that people call earmarks here wouldn’t classify as an earmark to the American people."

What the hell does that mean?


Confusingly, in his Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Boehner wrote:

No earmarks. Earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington, and an entire lobbying industry has been created around them.

So... He says "no earmarks". Except there will be no ban on earmarks. Because some things that people call earmarks here wouldn’t classify as an earmark to the American people."


Huh?

[Wesley Clark]

I think all earmarks come to under $20 billion/yr, and most are for infrastructure projects, education, etc. so how wasteful they are depends on whether you live in the state/district getting them.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/release...nding-165.html

But the deficit is over a trillion. Eliminate them all and you haven't even put a dent in the deficit.

[Mr. Duality]

The more things change, the more they will remain the same.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Boehner, the lachrymose leader, said yesterday that earmarks would not be eliminated after all. It was a very important principle to be fought for until they won control of the house. Now it is not important after all.

I'm reminded of an editorial cartoon I saw not long after the 1994 election: The Republican elephant, in a wedding tux, riding in a carriage with a "JUST MARRIED" banner, is wearing an innocent-rolleyes "Who, me?" expression while kicking out an astonished bride labeled "TERM LIMITS."

[Euphonious Polemic]

Rand Paul has Suddenly become a fan of earmarks. And only in the last few days!