Based on how antsy Democrats are for a fight, and how the left is currently leading the charge, there’s no question in my mind that Democrats will fail to fix their trust issues and will lose in 2028. Get ready for President Vance everybody!
this won’t help the dems in November and that is a good thing. Tear it all down and rebuild it from the ground up - no one is buying what you’re selling
The shutdown is playing straight into Trump's hands. He is already using it as a pretext to cut spending he doesn't like. If he wants to spend money on something he'll declare it essential and spend it -- further eroding the power of the purse vested in Congress. And if the Democrats then complain that he's abusing authority by spending money that voters in fact want spent, they come across as obstructionist ninnies.
Voting for something that the other side won't commit to honor is really awful. But the reality is that the Democrats are boxed in. The maneuvers and misplays that got us to this point have already happened. Spending more political capital in a vain attempt to recover what are effectively sunk costs seems really foolhardy.
Trump is surely chortling with delight to have been given the excuse to absorb all spending decisions into his personal authority. He won't be in any hurry to change the new status quo that so greatly empowers him.
I'm a paid subscriber but I stopped getting email updates from Matt, while still getting from Halina. If I open inbox.substack.com I still don't see those posts. They do show up in slowboring.com.
Substack support has been completely useless. Apologies for commenting on a post but no idea where to ask for help.
For months, a few of us didn't get notifications for replies but did for likes. Then magically it just started working again (which is how I know you replied). Sorry I don't have any better advice!
Given the stalemate between the two sides, it seems the most likely outcome is that Congress simply ceases to exist as a budgetary authority, and that the president will simply spend money as he chooses
I found the shutdown piece helpful. In general, I regret shutdowns, but don't pay much attention to them. What I pay attention to are the fraught debt ceiling crises.
I'm fine with Democrats refusing to vote for this bill, but I think the argument that getting rid of the filibuster and passing budgets by simple majority is one of the top 10 most wildly optimistic things in the history of American domestic political theory. It makes wholly unfounded assumptions about the ability of the American electorate to understand how the budget process works and who is to blame for any of it. That said, what I think *is* clear is that low information voters blame the President when anything bad happens, so allowing Republican legislators to blow things up while there's a Republican President in office is superior to allowing Republican legislators to blow things up while a Democratic President is in office.
Right. Which is related to the point that complaining about Trump being authoritarian doesn't do anything with low information voters because they already think they are electing a dictator every four years.
"Liked," although I continue to think it's more accurate to say that low information voters already think they are electing a god-king every four years.
Now would be the most politically effective time for Democrats to come out in support of nuking the filibuster if there ever was one. Inevitably, Republicans are going to end up getting most of what they want anyways and probably will defend the filibuster while they're in power, but at least Democrats can get a small number of points for becoming more of a pro-democracy, pro-make-government-effective party.
I was very interested to see your point that that Schumer's March choice to avert the March Shutdown has "been vindicated by events" -- can you share more about this? How? You note that he's not been given credit for actually making the right choice in that case, but I don't think most peope see it as the right choice -- don't see evidence of having it produced benefits. Yes, we'd have been in this crisis sooner -- but what evidence is there that the political situation would improved for Democrats during "the few months down the road"? What improved? If those improvements had been clearer, then I think he might have been credited -- but it is difficult to see anything as having had improved. I'd really appreciate your insight.
The Atlantic: "How Democrats Backed Themselves Into a Shutdown"
Hey guys at The Atlantic, did you notice that there's one party in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and it's NOT THE DEMOCRATS? How about titling your piece "how the REPUBLICANS caused the shutdown," hmmm?
(Yes, Murc's Law is a thing, doesn't mean I have to like it!)
At least the NYT changed the title of their opinion piece from "These 6 Charts Show Why the Democrats Shut Down the Government" to "These 6 Charts Show Why the Government Shut Down," yay NYT, good for you.
The accountability thing has been my gripe with the filibuster forever.
I think it’s the main reason our politics suck so hard. Because of the filibuster, you’re actually more free to promise extremism than reasonable policy. After all, extremism will be filibustered but you might actually pass (and become accountable for) reasonable policy!
So, people promise things that express frustration well but which their voters would hate as actual law. Without the filibuster, if you promise heads will roll then they can, will, and voters discover the only heads that can roll are their own.
The dog that isn't barking in this post is the extent to which Trump can use a shutdown to aggrandize more power to the presidency. If there is any marginal risk that the USA becomes permanently more authoritarian as a result of this food fight, then that is a price not worth paying, especially since (as the post points out) the only other stakes seem to be 1/ placating the infantile left; 2/ trying to raise salience of ACA subsidies; and 3/ hoping to put the GOP's prints on the dagger for the inevitable abolition of the filibuster. That is all bush league crap compared to an incremental slide toward authoritarianism.
How many more latent "emergency powers" will he and Vought be able to activate during a shutdown? What other permanent clicks of the ratchet will result?
I'm skeptical that there's anything they can do during a shutdown that they couldn't do otherwise. The administration seems quite eager to have the Supreme Court rule on the question of the President's impoundment authority. And the Court has also ruled that the Presidency has very broad hiring and firing authority, though I think the question of whether he has the authority to institute mass layoffs are still pending.
Regardless, if he's set on permanently cutting thousands of federal government employees, that weakens his power at the margin if anything.
Ok I'm confused - if the ACA premium supports should be permanent and its immoral to not extend them, why did Democrats make them temporary to begin with?
Also, I don't think Democrats have done a very good job of considering normie Republican POV - there is no world where Republicans agree to repeal the OBBBA and hundreds of billion in new OCI spending just so the minority part will allow the government to remain open. If they did that the party might as well disband and hand over power to the Democrats permanently.
Based on how antsy Democrats are for a fight, and how the left is currently leading the charge, there’s no question in my mind that Democrats will fail to fix their trust issues and will lose in 2028. Get ready for President Vance everybody!
Both congressional leaders from NY, enough said.
this won’t help the dems in November and that is a good thing. Tear it all down and rebuild it from the ground up - no one is buying what you’re selling
The shutdown is playing straight into Trump's hands. He is already using it as a pretext to cut spending he doesn't like. If he wants to spend money on something he'll declare it essential and spend it -- further eroding the power of the purse vested in Congress. And if the Democrats then complain that he's abusing authority by spending money that voters in fact want spent, they come across as obstructionist ninnies.
Voting for something that the other side won't commit to honor is really awful. But the reality is that the Democrats are boxed in. The maneuvers and misplays that got us to this point have already happened. Spending more political capital in a vain attempt to recover what are effectively sunk costs seems really foolhardy.
Trump is surely chortling with delight to have been given the excuse to absorb all spending decisions into his personal authority. He won't be in any hurry to change the new status quo that so greatly empowers him.
I'm a paid subscriber but I stopped getting email updates from Matt, while still getting from Halina. If I open inbox.substack.com I still don't see those posts. They do show up in slowboring.com.
Substack support has been completely useless. Apologies for commenting on a post but no idea where to ask for help.
Check your notification settings here: https://www.slowboring.com/account
I have all notifications enabled
For months, a few of us didn't get notifications for replies but did for likes. Then magically it just started working again (which is how I know you replied). Sorry I don't have any better advice!
Thanks anyway!
The world’s most famous “dealmaker” won’t negotiate in good faith and can’t even keep the government open.
Given the stalemate between the two sides, it seems the most likely outcome is that Congress simply ceases to exist as a budgetary authority, and that the president will simply spend money as he chooses
I found the shutdown piece helpful. In general, I regret shutdowns, but don't pay much attention to them. What I pay attention to are the fraught debt ceiling crises.
Thanks for the explainer on *this* shutdown.
<3
I'm fine with Democrats refusing to vote for this bill, but I think the argument that getting rid of the filibuster and passing budgets by simple majority is one of the top 10 most wildly optimistic things in the history of American domestic political theory. It makes wholly unfounded assumptions about the ability of the American electorate to understand how the budget process works and who is to blame for any of it. That said, what I think *is* clear is that low information voters blame the President when anything bad happens, so allowing Republican legislators to blow things up while there's a Republican President in office is superior to allowing Republican legislators to blow things up while a Democratic President is in office.
Right. Which is related to the point that complaining about Trump being authoritarian doesn't do anything with low information voters because they already think they are electing a dictator every four years.
"Liked," although I continue to think it's more accurate to say that low information voters already think they are electing a god-king every four years.
Now would be the most politically effective time for Democrats to come out in support of nuking the filibuster if there ever was one. Inevitably, Republicans are going to end up getting most of what they want anyways and probably will defend the filibuster while they're in power, but at least Democrats can get a small number of points for becoming more of a pro-democracy, pro-make-government-effective party.
I was very interested to see your point that that Schumer's March choice to avert the March Shutdown has "been vindicated by events" -- can you share more about this? How? You note that he's not been given credit for actually making the right choice in that case, but I don't think most peope see it as the right choice -- don't see evidence of having it produced benefits. Yes, we'd have been in this crisis sooner -- but what evidence is there that the political situation would improved for Democrats during "the few months down the road"? What improved? If those improvements had been clearer, then I think he might have been credited -- but it is difficult to see anything as having had improved. I'd really appreciate your insight.
From the department of facepalm meets headdesk:
The Atlantic: "How Democrats Backed Themselves Into a Shutdown"
Hey guys at The Atlantic, did you notice that there's one party in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and it's NOT THE DEMOCRATS? How about titling your piece "how the REPUBLICANS caused the shutdown," hmmm?
(Yes, Murc's Law is a thing, doesn't mean I have to like it!)
At least the NYT changed the title of their opinion piece from "These 6 Charts Show Why the Democrats Shut Down the Government" to "These 6 Charts Show Why the Government Shut Down," yay NYT, good for you.
The accountability thing has been my gripe with the filibuster forever.
I think it’s the main reason our politics suck so hard. Because of the filibuster, you’re actually more free to promise extremism than reasonable policy. After all, extremism will be filibustered but you might actually pass (and become accountable for) reasonable policy!
So, people promise things that express frustration well but which their voters would hate as actual law. Without the filibuster, if you promise heads will roll then they can, will, and voters discover the only heads that can roll are their own.
The dog that isn't barking in this post is the extent to which Trump can use a shutdown to aggrandize more power to the presidency. If there is any marginal risk that the USA becomes permanently more authoritarian as a result of this food fight, then that is a price not worth paying, especially since (as the post points out) the only other stakes seem to be 1/ placating the infantile left; 2/ trying to raise salience of ACA subsidies; and 3/ hoping to put the GOP's prints on the dagger for the inevitable abolition of the filibuster. That is all bush league crap compared to an incremental slide toward authoritarianism.
How many more latent "emergency powers" will he and Vought be able to activate during a shutdown? What other permanent clicks of the ratchet will result?
I'm skeptical that there's anything they can do during a shutdown that they couldn't do otherwise. The administration seems quite eager to have the Supreme Court rule on the question of the President's impoundment authority. And the Court has also ruled that the Presidency has very broad hiring and firing authority, though I think the question of whether he has the authority to institute mass layoffs are still pending.
Regardless, if he's set on permanently cutting thousands of federal government employees, that weakens his power at the margin if anything.
The AOC statement is well done, weaving together lots of normie stuff. From 0:42
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1973184370832974134?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1973213168496418974%7Ctwgr%5E09c97d0413f7bc21f3f57cf161b5df320bb58ee5%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Falexandria-ocasio-cortez-trump-weaker_n_68dc929ce4b0f3800bcd3698
Ok I'm confused - if the ACA premium supports should be permanent and its immoral to not extend them, why did Democrats make them temporary to begin with?
Also, I don't think Democrats have done a very good job of considering normie Republican POV - there is no world where Republicans agree to repeal the OBBBA and hundreds of billion in new OCI spending just so the minority part will allow the government to remain open. If they did that the party might as well disband and hand over power to the Democrats permanently.