Nobody knows us better than those who have known us for a while. That wisdom gives Louisiana’s most-read newspaper, The Advocate, a head start in analyzing the fifth-string GOP choice for speaker, Mike Johnson (R-LA) and his early days as House leader. They are on the fence.
In an editorial, It's time for Mike Johnson and the House to get serious, the paper makes the case that the GOP’s nihilistic weaponization of the budget process will cost Louisiana money. And as Louisiana is a welfare state overly dependent on federal cash to keep its economic head above water, they suggest Johnson does his job. And stops dicking around.
Note: a third (33.88%) of Louisiana’s budget is federal money. This makes it the fourth least self-sufficient state in the Union. It is easy to call yourself a fiscal conservative when your survival depends on the kindness of strangers.
The editorial starts:
“The Louisiana-based leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives is getting a big thing absolutely right: They want a budget process that works.
That would be good for the country, and good for Louisiana too.
Our state is heavily dependent on federal spending in a multitude of ways, more so than many others. That's one reason why Louisiana does not need a new government shutdown, as is still threatened despite the ascension of north Louisiana U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson to the speaker’s chair.”
Let us parse this. I do not know what evidence the paper has that the Louisiana leadership — behind Johnson, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) is the House GOP’s second in command — wants a budget process that works. In fact, later in the editorial, the paper contradicts its own claim.
The Advocate does better when it points out the fiscal reality of Louisiana’s dependence on other states’ taxpayers.
The editorial continues by pointing out that trying to anticipate what the House will do to stop the shutdown is unknowable because the GOP’s caucus is ruled by a handful of “swing votes.” I guess that is news-speak (newspeak?) for “bomb-throwing political arsonists.”
Next, the paper expresses optimism — I’ll have some of what they are smoking.
“We are hopeful, in part because Johnson and Steve Scalise of Jefferson Parish, the House's second-in-command, are trying to focus on bringing back “regular order” to the budget process.
That two-word phrase isn’t just bureaucratic in nature. It implies a House that pays attention to its formal duties, including the most important, weighing budget decisions for the nation.
It also implies not going off onto ideological tangents and playing the endless political games that have brought Congress into disrepute.
I may be wrong that The Advocate is familiar with Johnson. They again make an evidence-free claim. In this case, that Johnson and Scalise are “trying to focus on bringing back “regular order”.” So far, we only have GOP leadership’s word. And Republicans do not tell the truth.
The paper should know this. Especially as it points out how Johnson has promoted a measure that plays political games and is obviously not “weighing budget decisions for the nation.”
“Johnson was wrong to push an emergency measure that tied aid to our ally Israel to a GOP hobbyhorse, cutting the Internal Revenue Service budget, as some anti-government Republicans want to do. That just adds to the deficit, as it lets more high-income tax cheats defeat the system; for most of us, it just means the IRS can’t hire enough people to answer the darn phone.
Cut the games. If you promise regular order, let’s see it in action.”
The editorial goes on to give Scalise an attaboy for doing his job before stating the obvious — the GOP is a domestic abuser executing a murder/suicide plan.
“As majority leader, Scalise is moving more of the spending bills that comprise the budget through the process but two of them faltered last week because of continuing dissent from the hard-right faction in his caucus. A government shutdown still might loom, and that almost always hurts Republicans politically, although the House GOP's circular firing squad might still find that an attractive in-your-face gesture.”
The paper continues its journey into reality by predicting what will actually happen — except for the part about passing a temporary spending measure before Nov. 17. There will be a delay. As Will Rogers said, some people have to pee on the electric fence to discover it’s electrified.
"So are we going to define “regular order” as throwing all sorts of unattainable sloganeering into budget bills? Even worse, in critical national security decisions? We don’t think that’s reasonable, but clearly the clock is ticking and some sort of temporary spending measure must be passed ahead of the Nov. 17 deadline."
In the end, the editorial board indulges in wishful thinking as deluded as the long-range plans of a celebrity stalker.
“We urge the House to get with the program and enact a budget extension without drama, and then get on with the more thoughtful deliberation.
“Without drama” and “thoughtful discussions”. Is the Advocate not aware of who is on Johnson’s team? It is the very people who, a few paragraphs before, the paper characterized as enjoying the prospect of being members of a “circular firing squad.”
If the Advocate wants drama-free, thoughtful people in charge, they should pray the Democrats win the House in 2024.