Posted on 09/07/2019 4:56:12 AM PDT by BeauBo
The recent announcement by James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that he would not seek re-election in 2020 sparked new worries among the GOP that retaking the House in 2020 might be nearly impossible. Although Sensenbrenner's district should be "safe" (as should about half of the more than a dozen seats in districts where Republicans are retiring), it never helps to lose an incumbent.
That said, in 2020, the control of the House may be well near irrelevant.
Over time, the House has had one major constitutional duty: the budget. All spending and taxation bills must originate in the House. But in all likelihood, the decline of the House started in 1995, when the newly elected Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich caved in to media pressure to give Bill Clinton his bloated budget. Since then, no House has even attempted to control the deficits or the debt. For eight years under George W. Bush, the rationale was to fund the War on Terror. Then, under Barack Obama, the Democrat House had no intention of dealing with the deficits or the debt. For eight years, under both Democrats and Republicans, nothing was done to recapture the budget process. Continuing resolutions were the rule of the day...
I write this with some sadness. It certainly was not the Founders' vision for the House to be the least relevant of the legislative process, and in the minds of many of the Founders, it was to be the most "democratic" and responsive to the people. Once the House ceded its most fundamental responsibilities, it was inevitable that those duties would be done by the Executive...
Nancy Pelosi has turned the House of Representatives into the American equivalent of the House of Lords.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“But the GOP was broken by Clinton, and I think you know that.”
One could argue the GOP was broken by George H.W. Bush when he ended the Reagan conservative revolution and caved to the Democrats when he broke his “no new taxes” promise.
Please. Name me some of these revolutionaries who will cut spending.
First, it’s going to be very, very hard for the GOP to retake the House. With 13 members announcing retirement already (and needing to make up a good 17 seats to re-take control, not counting the NC special election where the R trails) you are looking at needing a net of about 25 flips to retake control. Not impossible, but I certainly haven’t found 25 killer candidates out there. At beset we have a really good one in OK5, one in one of the NJ seats, and probably the IL seat has a good candidate. In all the rest of the retirements, you’re relying on the fact that five or six of these are “red” districts.
2018 taught us that doesn’t matter. Will Hurd’s district has had its numbers decline every single year. So has one of the other TX districts. Here in AZ, we still have no one even remotely strong to run for any of the “flipped” seats.
It’s great to talk in generalities, but until you actually find stellar candidates, NO seat is safe.
Don’t forget the energy boom thanks to GHW Bush’s stabilization of the Middle East by booting Saddam out of Kuwait. Oil prices remained incredibly low for most of the decade.
Yet even then, even with all those advantages, Newt & Co. were unable to make a dent in the national debt.
Consider, on the other hand, Andrew Mellon, Sec Treas under Harding/Coolidge, who with proper cutting of the government and tax cuts shaved 1/3 off the national debt in 7 years.
There will be Trumpian coat tails if the predicted land slide actually occurs.
Then there is the Pelosi congress. It has accomplished nothing. It will continue to accomplish nothing. There may be no fervor to go vote
The truth seems to be, it is too soon to predict outcome
The budget estimates mandatory spending will be $2.841 trillion in FY 2020. Social Security was by far the biggest expense at $1.102 trillion.
Medicare was next at $679 billion, followed by Medicaid at $418 billion.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
Here in AZ, Steve Ducey won by 14 . . . and McSally lost by just under 1.
In OH, Mike DeWine won in a state that has a NET 300,000 Rs even after ALL “independents” are allocated based on previous voting patterns, and Renaicci lost.
In TX, Greg Abbott won by 10, but Ted Cruz barely got in with 3.2%.
These are statewide senate races in red states. Now, House races in many of these districts are much different. Many have a D advantage. Yes, Trump carried them, big sometimes (like a couple of the MN districts, like the AZ districts, like UT) and yet lackluster candidates couldn’t hold them.
It’s not doom and gloom, and it is early. But By now we should be seeing a raft of capable and exciting GOP candidates and they simply are NOT appearing.
This is by design.
The GOPee-rats are once again intentionally snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because they hate “leading” from the front, and they despise having to work with President Trump to advance what is good for the country.
You have a point. Also, there is a VERY good point made by liberal economist Robert Eisner back in the 1980s (I think accidentally, cuz Reagan was president).
Eisner argued, correctly I think, that American government assets are not accurately valued due to arcane laws that require the government to value an asset at PURCHASE price. So, for example, the Presidio in SF that was sold off several years ago. This was prime urban real estate. Now, I’m no realtor so I can’t give you a square foot valuation for SF property, but the government sold it at a tiny fraction of that.
Or, take our US gold holdings which are substantial. Those are valued at the purchase price (in some cases, $35 an ounce!) When Eisner recalculated the value of American assets in modern $, he found our debt (which at the time he did the study was something like $1 trillion or less to actually be more like $200b, or about 20% of the real debt.
Now, of course people say “We can’t sell the Washington Monument.” No, but we COULD sell some of the DC office buildings and, as Trump has already done, start moving people to much cheaper quarters in the heartland where their offices belong.
However, I think anyone at this point expecting us to dump SS or Medicare is dreaming. It just isn’t going to happen. A VERY powerful pres with full commitment of Congress could reform it so people could opt out, but that would take a near miracle.
And the excessive cuts to the military.
Don’t forget Y2K forced every company to buy new computers..
Bush 43's second term might have been the best shot we had at doing this.
I agree with you.
I don't think there is interest in doing this from either party for different reasons. It gives up too much control and money. That's something guvment isn't going to relinquish control of.
Once we replace them, the spending cuts that all reasonable people want will finally, FINALLY become possible!
LOL! You have a great future ahead of you as a comedian.
And remember how tiny Bush’s suggestion was: 2% of the 6% that the individual paid!!!
I don’t want to sound overly optimistic, but I believe that a Trump “tsunami” will carry many “unknown” Republicans with it. IMHO, a GOP majority in the House and a filibuster-proof GOP majority in the Senate are both achievable.
I do not agree with you that it is MY responsibility to “name” each and every new Republican who will be elected to the House and Senate.
Nor is it my responsibility to “name” today the Democrat Senators and Representatives who will “flip” to the Republican party after the election.
Nor can I list the “programs” that our new Constitution-supporting judges and Justices will soon rule must be stopped — because they are (in spite of Democrat bleating) un-Constitutional.
I DO accept responsibility to vote against the “big spenders” and to communicate to the representatives that we elect that it is THEIR duty to cut wasteful spending.
In other words, I think we patriots should not “surrender” before the “fight” has even begun. I hope you agree.
I do agree.
But it is your responsibility, if you make an argument that “x” can win a seat, to say who “x” is that can win that seat.
I think you’d agree that if Roy Moore wins the nomination in AL, that Senate seat will stay D.
Here in AZ, I don’t see ANY candidates for the three key house races who can re-take these seats.
So, from a strategic point of view-—given what I just wrote about the House-—maybe it makes more sense to put our money into ensuring we keep the Senate, which I think we (barely) will. But that all rests on NOT nominating Moore in AL and in Collins hanging on. Because if it’s 50/50, Minion Romney will screw us every time.
Totally & completely irrelevant.
Leftists are driven by emotion and are far more anti-Trump than pro-Pelosi.
Envy due to his loss in 2012, compared to Trump's victory?
Or near-insane hatred and fear from his staff that feeds the envy?
I don’t think Roy will get the nomination. Roy didn’t even campaign and left himself vulnerable to the attacks. He just ran commercial and expected everyone to vote for him. Democrats saw he was weak and went for jugular. Roy curdled up in ball and did nothing. People will not nominate him again. Now do we have a strong conservative running for the seat ? I don’t think anyone has jumped out front yet.
With legalized vote harvesting in California, the next thing they will do is outlaw republican candidates out there. Moving in that direction with the law regarding President Trump’s tax returns. God, I hate California politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.