Trump’s Megabill and the New Art of G.O.P. Capitulation
What is in a name? Donald Trump, for whom appearances are everything, thinks that it’s about the only thing that matters. He called on the only element of major legislation associated with his second term “The One Big, Beautiful Bill”, a piece of the HOKEY brand that his supporters of Capitol Hill quickly turned into the official name of the measure. There are signs that he does not know much about what is in the 4.5 -dollar megabill of dollars – during a last -minute lobbying session in the White House on Wednesday, Trump should have remembered by a republican congress member that the measure in fact made major discounts in Medicaid despite Trump’s promises not to touch him. But the substance is never the point with Trump; Optics are.
It was therefore revealed that the only victory on the ground that the Democrats marked during the drama hours this week leading to the last passage on Thursday of the tax cuts for the bill of expenditure and expenses for the break were an objection of the last broadcast in the bad name of Trump. The Senate had just drawn a night to vote on a range of democratic changes to measure-so many amendments, in fact, that, when the Senate took his forty-fifth vote on Tuesday morning, he broke his previous record for one of his so-called voting a-raas. All the efforts sponsored by the Democrats to revise the legislation failed. But the head of the Senate minority, Chuck Schumer, insisted on a last symbolic complaint for a few moments before the final vote: a parliamentary objection in the beloved name of Trump for the measure – which, according to Schumer, was a violation of the Senate budgetary rules. The parliamentarian accepted; The name has been deleted from the official legislative text. “It is not at all a” big bill, “said Schumer to journalists shortly after.” It is really the “great ugly betrayal”. “And yet his parliamentary victory could not have been more Pyrrhic; if there is one thing that the Americans are likely to know about this sprawling bill, this is not what is the catchy title that Trump years old, the opposition would have learned not to fight Trump on the brand; you would be wrong.
But this is not a story about the absence of Democrats. Essentially, their votes and their objections, as noisy or meritorious, did not matter. Thursday afternoon afternoon of the bill, just in time for the essentially arbitrary deadline of July 4 that Trump had set for this, constituted not only a major victory for Trump but an illustration of the raw power that he exercises on the GOP of today, on Wednesday evening, when he sought a few hours as a touch of unvarted republicans, and took the credit when they did. “Maga is not happy,” he warned her social flow of social networks shortly after midnight. Before Dawn, the victory was his and the House had voted to approve the rule which would governed the consideration of the bill. “What a great night it was,” he posted Thursday morning.
As a policy, the most notable aspect of the rush towards the passage of the week was the extent to which the bill prevailed despite the unresolved concerns of so many republicans who complained publicly of everything, of the enormous increase in budget deficit with the potentially devastating consequences of Medicaid against it. Thursday, the head of the minority of the room, Hakeem Jeffries, devoted long passages to his speech opposing the bill – which lasted eight hours record of eight hours and forty -four minutes – to recite the objections against it which had been raised by the Republicans themselves. There were almost too many examples of members such as Keith Self, from Texas, who called the version adopted by the Senate of the plan “morally and tax in bankruptcy”, then went forward and voted for it anyway. Even in the handful of cases where to vote for the measure seems to be an obvious case of political self -control, many have done so. The Californian republican David Valadao, for example, represents a district where almost seventy percent of his voters count on Medicaid for their health care. On Saturday, Valadao released what seemed to be a categorical declaration-he would vote no, he insisted, if the larger cuts of the Senate bill in Medicaid were kept to the final extent. But, when they were, he still voted yes. Principle n ° 1 To understand the GOP in the Trump era is to recognize that, in a choice between Trump and even the most professed principles of a Congress member, the default option is that the Republican chooses Trump.
There were many examples of this type of acquiescence on the side of the Senate – like that of the Republican Mike Lee, of UTAH, who warned on June 18: “The deficit will eat in life if we do not take it under control” then, a few days later, voted to increase the deficit by billions of dollars. As in the House, it was not that the concerns of the Republicans had been supposed, but that their time to recognize what it means to be a republican in Washington of Trump. Swallow the bill, kiss hypocrisy – or leave. Thom Tillis has chosen to stop. As in, completely abandon his seat at the Congress. The Northern Carolina Republican had raised concerns concerning the billions of dollars in reduction of Medicaid in the bill that many colleagues and Trump himself claimed did not exist or were, as JD Vance, “immaterial” said. On Sunday, after having declared his opposition to the legislation and listened to Trump’s threats to bury him politically, Tillis announced that he would not ask for the reflection of next year.
The decision left Tillis free to make one of the most convincing speeches against the measure, although even then, he insisted that Trump had in a way been “badly informed” on the cups at Medicaid by the “amateur” advisor and the damage that these cuts were going – a line that reminded me of time as a correspondent in Russia. However, Tillis could not have been clearer than Trump had broken his commitment. “It is essential,” he said, that “this bill will betray the promise that Donald Trump made.”
The decisive vote in the Senate was expressed by Lisa Murkowski, who reluctantly supported the bill after the Republican leaders made several concessions aimed at helping its original state from Alaska to escape some of the consequences of the measure. With three other Republicans voting no, Murkowski alone could have flowed the bill; Instead, she transformed it into an equality of 50 to 50, which was then broken by Vance. Unlike some of her most ostensible pro-Trump colleagues, she did not claim that she was happy. Indeed, it was the tormented face of Murkowski after her vote which I will remember, as well as the declaration she made, essentially disowning the bill which she had just made possible. She said: “Although we have worked to improve the current bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation – and we all know it.” In addition, she added: “My sincere hope is that it is not the final product. This bill needs more work through the rooms and is not ready for the president’s office. We have to work together to do things well. ”
This is of course not what happened. She claimed to vote for the bill in the hope that the Republicans in the House would have in a way more courage than she had shown it herself. Is anyone surprised that he did not do it? Barely forty-eight hours later, the room adopted the full version of the Senate. A few minutes before his visit on Thursday, the president of the room, Mike Johnson, thanked a “daring, visionary and fearless president Donald J. Trump” for having achieved it in victory, then took advantage of the magical thought of Trump style to explain the objections. “With a large and beautiful bill, we will make this country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever,” he insisted. If he had answers to the scruples of his own members, on Medicaid or anything else, I did not hear them. Regardless – at the end, dozens of GOP legislators who had raised complaints, only two voted against her in the Chamber – even less than in the Senate.
I’m going to leave Tillis to offer an appropriate epitaph for Murkowski, and so many other Republicans, who opted for the Easy yes this week. Their badge is important. A few months ago, Murkowski made the headlines of national newspapers when she mentioned in an appearance at home the very real fear of reprisals that she and others felt during the opposition to Trump. “We are all afraid,” she said. Is this the real explanation for his vote now? Even if this is the case, I wondered, is it fair to favor her fear to that of the many Americans that she admits to suffer? Trump is Trump, but without the capitulation and active compliance of the Republican Party, his unbound assault against American institutions and millions of his most vulnerable people would not be possible. A journalist for Punchbowl News Asked the newly released Tillis if there was room for the disagreement in today’s Republican Party. “If you have the courage,” replied Tillis. “And if you don’t, there is none.” ♦
