Not One Republican

 

Yesterday, the Senate Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act. It's accurate to say Senate Democrats, because not one Republican helped pass it. Not one.  This bill brings significant benefits for health care costs and fighting climate change, and could have been even better, but Republicans spitefully blocked a provision that would have capped insulin costs to $35 a month. 

Why do I say they spitefully did that? Well, they could have just left in in the bill. But just as with their snit fit over the PACT Act, I really suspect they didn't want to be remotely helpful and were mad that this significant legislation would be passed at all. It's not like they seem to especially care about the environment, anyway, and they complain about prescription medicine costs--but doing something about them smacks too much of making government do stuff.

I could be disappointed, but not surprised. Remember, it was at this point in Barack Obama's presidency that Senator Mitch McConnell made clear that obstruction in order to hopefully deny Obama a second term was the actual goal of congressional Republicans. It didn't work for them, but here they are, looking for all the world like they have the same obstructionist strategy. 

The bill is expected to reduce the deficit and moderately curb inflation. To hear Republicans tell it, you would think inflation (a global phenomenon brought on by digging out of the COVID-19 recession and supply chain issues) was a purely local phenomenon and all Joe Biden's fault. You think if they wanted to demonstrate the genius of fiscal conservatism, they would offer suggestions?

Uh, no. They are just going to complain. This is why I am fed up with people who blow smoke about bipartisanship and unity and so on. Instead of being a part of the solution by passing meaningful legislation, they seem happy to gesture in the direction of progress and say "See, I tried to black that. You're welcome."

Not one Republican voted for this bill. As far as I'm concerned, not one Republican should stay in office.

The GOP approach to "Party discipline"?

From Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller, a fascinating story about the RNC's expenses:

Once on the ground, FEC filings suggest, Steele travels in style. A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent [update: the amount is actually $1,946.25] at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.

RNC trips to other cities produced bills from a long list of chic and costly hotels such as the Venetian and the M Resort in Las Vegas, and the W (for a total of $19,443) in Washington. A midwinter trip to Hawaii cost the RNC $43,828, not including airfare.

It turns out the individual who submitted the charges was a political consultant:

Washington (CNN) – A California-based political consultant who charged the Republican National Committee nearly $2,000 for a night out at Voyeur - a risque West Hollywood nightclub now at center of the latest controversy surrounding RNC chairman Michael Steele - will return the money to the party, a committee spokesman told CNN Monday.

Erik Brown, president of the Orange County-based Dynamic Marketing, Inc., was re-imbursed in February for $1,946.25 worth of charges at the nightclub, according to the RNC's latest filing with the Federal Election Commission.

It's not clear why the RNC re-imbursed Brown for the charges or who else was with him at the club. A spokesman for the RNC said Steele was not at the club when the charges were made.

The RNC said Brown is returning the money in question to the RNC. "The committee has received a commitment that the money will be returned," the spokesman told CNN.

That is a puzzle. But actually, the other expenses should be more of a concern to the GOP. I might be politically naive, but lavish expenses just before 2010 elections in a year when donations might be kind of down doesn't make sense. I've heard that spending money attracts money, but it doesn't seem to fit with "fiscally responsible" messaging.

Although I could just be concern-trolling. Or snarking, or something.

(I'm a little surprised that I'm using the Daily Caller as a source already.)