Josh Marshall has been pushing the idea that the best opportunity for Democrats to stop Trump/Musk’s wrecking ball is in the upcoming budget and debt ceiling negotiations that have to be done my March. It’s almost impossible for the GOP to pass anything without Democratic help and the wild, extreme nature of what Musk is doing is having the effect of making Democrats band together. He writes:
The standard should be: no help on the budget or the debt ceiling until the lawbreaking stops. Period. End of story. No wilding gangs marauding through the federal government. End the criminal conduct. Period.
That’s it. No nuance….
If you’re concerned about the constitutional crisis, I would use every opportunity to convey to lawmakers that a flat “no” on any assistance until the criminal conduct stops is the only acceptable position. It is the right thing to do, the constitutional thing to do and it is the only path that holds the possibility of meaningfully changing the situation in the short to medium term. It also demonstrates and shows an understanding of how to use power. And that is something the opposition desperately needs. Make them come to you.
I more or less said the same thing actually a while back only I phrased by saying they haven’t o get rid of Musk and DOGE, period. I think it pretty much amounts to the same thing.
Trump is very exercised about the debt ceiling and very angry that they didn’t raise it before he took office. That’s the leverage point. People are waking up to the chaos and the consequences of a government shutdown will accrue to the Republicans (as if always does) because they are in charge and should be able to get it done without the Democrats.
Meanwhile, Republicans still can’t agree on whether to do one big bill or two. Here’s the state of play from Punchbowl News:
As Johnson and the House Republican Conference search for common ground between unyielding conservative hardliners and everyone else, the Senate has gotten tired of waiting.Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced that he’s going to mark up his own $300 billion budget resolution next week, throwing a massive wrench into Johnson’s plans. Graham announced the budget-resolution markup as Johnson insisted that the House needs to move first.
The Senate’s budget plan won’t look at all like what the House is envisioning. Graham’s proposal would include $150 billion for the Pentagon and other defense programs, plus $150 billion for border security, including Trump’s border wall. There’ll also be energy policy provisions. Graham says the new spending will be offset by cuts to mandatory programs, but he didn’t say which ones.
Graham and Senate Majority Leader John Thune want to hand Trump an early win on the border, defense spending and energy policy — something the president might find attractive. Senate GOP leaders plan to return to extension of the 2017 tax cuts later this year with a second reconciliation package. If the Senate passes its budget resolution before the House moves, it would put the Senate in the driver’s seat in dictating the legislative contours of the 119th Congress.
Meanwhile, Johnson, House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) want a single reconciliation package that includes the totality of Trump’s agenda, everything from border security to energy to tax cuts. House Republicans think one bill is easier to pass than two.
Graham’s gamble — and it is one — may not make it through the House. Graham and Thune admitted as much during the Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, according to multiple Republican senators who attended the session. Yet Graham and Thune insisted that something had to be done, adding that they had little faith in Johnson or House GOP leaders.
This Senate drama shows how badly Johnson is getting squeezed on every side, just weeks after he barely survived a vote to be speaker. And that was only because of Trump’s direct intervention. Conservative hardliners spoke up in a closed party meeting Wednesday, telling Johnson that they want two reconciliation bills, not one. A number of conservative hardliners — Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and others — are backchanneling with Senate Republicans to urge them to spoil the speaker’s plans.
So far, Trump has deferred to Johnson’s one-bill strategy. But the president has left the door open to the idea that two bills may be easier. And there are White House aides who privately agree with Graham, not Johnson.
House and Senate Republicans are sniping at each other with some worried that if they don’t do their precious tax cuts early they could find themselves backed against a wall next fall when they run out. It’s a big mess and there is no reason on earth that Democrats should even think of bailing them out under these circumstances.
Puck reported this a couple of days ago:
Senator Patty Murray usually flies under the radar—she’s not a social media hyperventilator—relying on her considerable power as the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee to talk for her. So it was notable that, while news cameras flocked to outraged Democrats protesting Elon Musk, Murray firmly told Punchbowl that it would be “extremely difficult” for Democrats to agree on a spending bill when the president was “illegally blocking” funding approved by Congress. “Democrats and Republicans alike,” she warned, “must be able to trust that when a deal gets signed into law, it will be followed.”
For those versed in Murray-ese, her commentary could be interpreted only as a shutdown threat. Given their margins, House Republicans can’t pass spending bills without Democratic votes unless they achieve near total unity within their conference—a mathematical reality that gives otherwise powerless Democrats their only serious leverage. Indeed, Murray’s seemingly dry statement caught a lot of attention around the Hill.
It would not be the Democrats shutting anything down. The Republicans have the majority. If they can’t round up enough votes to pass their agenda that’s on them. If they want Democrats to help them out they have to give them something in return and Democrats want this DOGE bullshit to stop. If Republicans don’t want that then they can figure out some other way to pass their bills.
Unfortunately, the press is characterizing this as the Democrats “telegraphing a possible willingness to play chicken with the global economy” but they really shouldn’t care about that. This is too important.
Of course, when Republicans make such threats, they typically extract a few concessions, dutifully cave, and wind up dealing with the opposition to pass a compromise bill. Threats, as Donald Trump will tell you, are just jumping-off points to start negotiations. (See: tariffs.) But there are reasons to take Murray more seriously than the more prolific blusterers of the Senate. She’s the most senior Democratic senator, at the peak of her powers. She’s a close ally of minority leader Chuck Schumer, and she’s not known to go rogue. When Murray speaks, it should be assumed the entire caucus is behind her. She is, moreover, one Democrat that Republicans actually listen to. And whatever the fate of spending negotiations in March, she has crystallized how Democrats see their dispute with Musk: as a war for Congress’s very survival as an independent branch of government.
I have a sneaking suspicion there are a few Republicans who will be glad to see the Democrats take a hard line on this. They’re too cowardly to buck Trump but I believe they’ll play the game to the Democrats’ advantage if they see it could result in shutting down DOGE.
Keep in mind that Trump isn’t really into all this cutting business. It was never his thing. He thinks if he can do tariffs and drill, baby, drill he’ll get enough growth to erase the deficit without having to cut anything. But he’s willing to let Musk run with this for the moment because he’s bought into the shock and awe strategy. I just have a feeling that’s not going to last. Musk is getting too much attention and he’s making Trump look sort of weak and pathetic.
He’s not happy.