Congress is currently facing a budget crisis. They are coming up on the end of the fiscal year, which means they need to pass a funding measure to keep the government going. Republicans control the House with a narrow majority. However, they need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster and advance a budget measure, and they only have 53. That means (as political scientist Jonathan Bernstein explains) Democrats have, at least in theory, an opportunity to extract concessions.
The last time Congress faced this impasse, Chuck Schumer got confused, panicked, and tore out his own spine as Democratic Senators liquified around him and broke their own fillibuster without even trying to get literally anything. That’s part of the reason Chuck Schumer’s approval rating is somewhere south of bubonic plague and cockroaches.
This time it seems likely that Democrats will at least attempt to make some demands. The problem is that if Democrats demand too much, Republicans probably just kill the filibuster, robbing Democrats of any potential leverage going forward. Worse, Bernstein says, if Democrats refuse to engage in the process at all, Republicans probably will pass a bill which will be worse in many details than what Democrats might have been able to get if they’d engaged with the process. (The House is working on extremely horrible provisions on trans healthcare, for example; it doesn’t look like it will pass the Senate, but Ds should want to make sure it doesn’t.)
On the other hand, if Democrats don’t fight, or demand too little, they are going to enrage their base. Worse, they are going to dishearten their base; it is hard to keep fighting fascism, and hard to feel enthusiastic about voting D, if the Ds in power refuse to fight fascism.
And worse even that that—fighting fascism is really important because fascism hurts people. Ds need to fight because people need help! The administration is doing horrible things; people with a conscience in power need to at least try to do all they can to stop those horrible things. Otherwise, why are they even there?
—
Everything Is Horrible—and that includes freelancing. I’m more and more dependent on the newsletter for income. So if you find my writing valuable, please consider becoming a contributor. It’s $5/month, $50/year.
Trying to find the win
So, the question is what can Democrats ask for? Pundit Matthew Yglesias and election analyst Lakshya Jain have suggested extending healthcare subsidies which are set to expire. Josh Marshall has argued the Democrats should demand an Ending Dictator Rule:
Three broad areas to target are: 1) Forcing Trump to get Congress to pass a law making his tariffs legal 2) Force him to end his rescissions and make him follow the congressionally passed budget. 3) End the invasions of American cities.
Bernstein says (and I think he’s right) that Republicans would never agree to the Ending Dictator Rule. It’s basically asking them to repeal the entire Trump agenda. They’ll just nuke the filibuster, and probably quickly.
On the other hand, as Evan Sutton notes, while the GOP (and especially vulnerable members) might be willing to push terminating healthcare subsidies back a few months, part of the reason they’d be willing to do that is it’s a small bore ask which they can easily undo later. It also could conceivably help them in elections by keeping the cuts from hitting until after the midterms.
And, while healthcare subsidies poll well, they’re the kind of wonkish, small bore negotiation that is unlikely to fire anyone up, and unlikely to really focus the media on the unique dangers of this administration. Even a win on this issue would feel like half-assed capitulation—especially if Republicans just gut the subsidies later, as seems likely.
But I think there is a sweet spot of asking for something Republicans might be willing to give which would also feel like a real win. That sweet spot is RFK, Jr.
Someone everyone wants to throw under the bus
RFK, Jr, the current HHS secretary, is a terrifying figure who is currently attempting to destroy vaccines in the US on his way to murdering (at least) tens of thousands of children (and also adults) via measles, polio, and covid. This has led to a major crisis at the CDC, as Kennedy fired the director, leading to hearings in which he once again demonstrated his manifest unfitness. He is a monstrous one-man danger to public health.
Most Democrats know that. What is less well understood, I think, is that RFK’s support among Republican elected officials is quite tenuous. As I wrote at Public Notice last week, the CDC crisis was the result of Senate Republicans refusing to greenlight RFK’s preferred antivax ghoul as CDC director in July. Instead, they approved Susan Monarez, a conservative Republican who is also an informed scientist. When RFK fired her, he was defying, not Democrats, but Senators in his own party. That’s perhaps why Trump has taken steps to distance himself from his HHS Secretary in a bizarre post in which he begged vaccine companies to do a better job of defending their products.
Kennedy was not even a Republican a year ago; he’s a lifelong Democrat who ran for president as an independent before endorsing Trump. And even though vaccine skepticism has become more popular in the party since Covid, destroying vaccines is not a longtime or core Republican goal. Kennedy’s a passionate crank, but his passionate crankery is his own, not the GOP’s, and not even really Trump’s. Virtually anyone else Trump nominated for the position would be less horrible.
More, many Republican Senators—Mitch McConnell, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Tom Tillis, John Barrasso—have signaled that they do not trust Kennedy. And that distrust has been translated into action. The Senate knuckled under and confirmed Kennedy at Trump’s demand, but they did not let Kennedy choose his preferred CDC director. This is a real split in the GOP which Senators have shown they are willing to act on in the right circumstances.
So, maybe Democrats should set up some circumstances. Demand that Trump fire RFK and nominate an acceptable HHS secretary (Susan Monarez?) before Democrats will provide the votes for a budget deal.
There isn’t a guarantee of victory here. Trump would no doubt whine and thrash and denounce. Republicans would be reluctant to defy him.
But, again, there are probably six Republican Senators at least who would probably like RFK gone, though they might not want to say so publicly. And there are not very many Republican Senators who really want to go to the wall for a man they don’t trust and a policy they don’t support. Trump himself is not that committed to RFK; he’s not a longtime crony or a family member. The GOP, including Trump, really might be willing to just defenestrate him. If they did, it would be a major, sweeping victory for public health, and one which would be very unlikely to be reversed, because, again, the main driver of RFK’s anti vaccine crusade is RFK, not the GOP as a whole.
And if Democrats lose and the GOP gets rid of the filibuster? Well, at least Ds will have had a chance to center the national conversation on RFK’s ugly assault on vaccines—and to force the GOP to defend that assault and all it means for children and for public health.
Demanding RFK’s ugly head in exchange for a budget compromise is a simple, high profile, dramatic ask which can rally Democrats and divide Republicans. It wouldn’t solve everything, but a victory would be a real win, and even a loss could damage the GOP. I’m not a pundit anyone listens to, so this almost certainly won’t be the issue Ds choose to fight on. But I think it should be.
There are at least some republicans who are as rabidly ant-vax as RFK Jr. Florida is trying to have it both ways, by saying they are only against mandates, and that vaccinations will still be available. Potato, potahto. They are still creating a potential health crisis.
I was initially skeptical but … I like this idea. Good argument & well framed.