House Democrats Unveil "Secret" Debt-Ceiling Plan

With the battle over the debt ceiling heating up, The New York Times had a big scoop yesterday, about House Democrats' "secret plan" to resolve the standoff. Quite a few outlets picked up the story and ran with it. So, what's the plan? Well, here are the first three paragraphs of the Times' story:

The only clue to the gambit was in the title of the otherwise obscure hodgepodge of a bill: "The Breaking the Gridlock Act."

But the 45-page legislation, introduced without fanfare in January by a little-known Democrat, Representative Mark DeSaulnier of California, is part of a confidential, previously unreported, strategy Democrats have been plotting for months to quietly smooth the way for action by Congress to avert a devastating federal default if debt ceiling talks remain deadlocked.

With a possible default now projected as soon as June 1, Democrats on Tuesday began taking steps to deploy the secret weapon they have been holding in reserve. They started the process of trying to force a debt-limit increase bill to the floor through a so-called discharge petition that could bypass Republican leaders who have refused to raise the ceiling unless President Biden agrees to spending cuts and policy changes.

This reads a bit like an Agatha Christie novel. It's very cloak-and-dagger.

So the "secret plan," then, is to find five House Republicans who are willing to defy Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and sign off on a discharge petition. Seems like we've read about that option before the Times broke the story. Hmmmm... where was that? Ah yes, it was in the item we wrote yesterday about the debt ceiling. As a reminder, here is the final paragraph of that item:

However, our guess is that the more plausible way forward looks like this: The Senate (with some Republican votes) passes a clean debt-ceiling bill. Then, House Democrats get a handful of those Republicans in districts that Biden won to agree to it. If the House Democrats plus a handful of Republicans form a majority, they can file a discharge petition and bring the bill to the floor and pass it, even over McCarthy's objections. And while the Speaker would undoubtedly hoot and holler about the whole thing, to anyone who would listen, he would likely be privately relieved, since this would solve his headache without his having to take personal responsibility. In any case, the eyes of the world are now on the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Yeah, we added the bit about the Senate making the first move, but the substance is the same.

Actually, if you are a faithful reader you might have read about the discharge petition here first since we ran the story on April 10.

The point here is not to underscore our brilliant insight, because it really wasn't brilliant at all. Nor do we have inside sources in the House, or at the Times. We wrote that because if you've got a president who won't budge and a Speaker who won't budge, there's only one of those where an end-run around them is possible. That would be the Speaker, and the only way to do an end-run around them is a discharge petition.

This is so obvious that we don't really get why House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) & Co. were keeping the scheme under lock and key, like it's the nuclear launch codes. And we don't get why the Times behaved like it had a big scoop, and other media outlets reported it thusly. In any event, we now have confirmation that if Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy are unable to have a meeting of the minds, then the fate of the U.S. and world economies may well be in the hands of five as-yet-unknown House Republicans. (Z)

Supreme Court May Be Preparing to Kill the Chevron Doctrine

Among the folks who work in the federal government, or who practice administrative law, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) is a very famous case, indeed. It's a little weedy, but here's the Cliff's Notes version:

1. Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1977, which placed limits on "new sources" of pollution, but did not define exactly what "sources" means
2. The Carter-era EPA interpreted the word "sources" broadly, forcing polluting businesses to jump through many hoops
3. The Reagan-era EPA came along and re-interpreted "sources" narrowly, which meant way fewer hoops for polluting businesses
4. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a pro-environment group, sued the EPA and won
5. The Chevron Corporation sued the NRDC, took the case to the Supreme Court, and won there, reinstating the Reagan EPA interpretation

In its decision, which was technically unanimous (though three sitting justices did not participate at all), the Court ruled thusly:

First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute... Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

In other words, if a statute doesn't spell things out clearly for a federal agency, then the agency is allowed to use its best judgment, as long as its conclusions are within reason. This is known as the Chevron doctrine, or as Chevron deference.

Now, the Chevron doctrine could be the latest thing to end up on the current Supreme Court's chopping block. Chief Justice John Roberts & Co. have agreed to hear Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Gina Raimondo, which is even weedier than the original Chevron case. In short, Loper Bright thinks that the National Marine Fisheries Service overstepped its bounds when interpreting the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Frankly, if we had a nickel for every time we've gotten into an argument over the terms of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act... well, in any case, if Loper Bright wins, SCOTUS could very well do away with the Chevron doctrine altogether.

On the whole, this is being framed as a Republicans vs. Democrats issue, since the former dislikes government power and wants to see the agencies' wings clipped, while the latter likes government power just fine, and wants to see the agencies spread their wings. However, that's probably not the best way to think about it. The Chevron doctrine has effectively given more power to the executive branch, somewhat at the expense of the legislative branch. Whether you think that's a good thing probably depends on what the executive branch is trying to do at that particular time. The original Chevron case involved a conservative president using ambiguities in the law to advance conservative environmental policies. So, it can certainly cut both ways.

It is also worth noting that Chevron doctrine cases are already something of a coin flip. Depending on whose study you believe, the federal bureaucracy's interpretations of ambiguous laws are sustained between 55% and 70% of the time. So, even if SCOTUS gets rid of Chevron deference, it's not a completely radical departure the way that, say, the Dobbs decision was.

Of course, the first "victim" of the decision, if SCOTUS does kill Chevron deference, will be Joe Biden. In particular, given that getting environmental legislation through Congress right now is roughly as easy as passing a kidney stone, the administration depends on "interpretations" of existing statutes in order to implement its environmental agenda. So, the impact could be quite profound, even if the decision flies below the radar. (Z)

Make Freedom Mine?

We are not exactly certain when right-wing Americans began to assert a monopoly on the word "freedom"—what it means, how best to preserve it, who is guilty of trying to take it away. But if we had to guess, we'd say 1948 is a pretty good answer. In that year, a conservative think tank hired a conservative film producer to create the propaganda film Make Mine Freedom:

It's overtly pro-business, pro-patriotism, pro-"American values" and, tacitly, pro-Republican Party. It is also overtly anti-socialism, anti-communism and, tacitly, anti-Democratic Party. Since then, Republican politicians and activists have very successfully managed to weaponize "freedom," from Richard Nixon in the early years of his career through Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Kevin McCarthy today.

Joe Biden has been alive that entire time, and has noticed this pattern. And so, he has decided to try to take "freedom" back. This was clear in his launch video (entitled "Freedom," by the way), and it will become even clearer as he campaigns. He plans to argue that he will protect freedom from Republicans who want to take it away.

This will be very, very interesting to watch. Certainly, aided by folks like Lee Atwater and Frank Luntz, the Republican Party has done an excellent job of using language as a political tool, and turning things like "freedom," "strength," and "liberty" into assets for the GOP, while making things like "liberal," "progressive," and "woke" into liabilities for the Democrats. Many a Democratic voter and operative have complained that their Party does not take this kind of messaging seriously enough, and doesn't do enough to counter it. That's apparently not a problem anymore.

And Biden has chosen a pretty good time to implement what might be called, for lack of a better term, Operation Freedom. The preeminent policy planks of the Republican Party in 2024 pretty much all have to do with limiting various freedoms. That includes cracking down on reproductive choice, gender identity, which books a student can read, and whether or not a corporation can express political beliefs (even in a mild fashion). Ron DeSantis, who we guess is still a contender for the GOP presidential nomination, is particularly open to this line of attack; he might be the most anti-freedom politician of the last 50 years (it's a close call between him and Dick Cheney).

That said, if Biden sticks with this, he'll be trying to reverse roughly 75 years of Republican messaging. That's not an easy thing to do in a little over a year. Further, it is entirely possible that Republican voters are more susceptible to this kind of messaging than Democratic voters are. Anyhow, like we said, it will be interesting to watch. (Z)

Manchin For President? Yeah, Right

Yesterday, The Hill had a piece headlined "Manchin stokes Dem fears he'll run as third-party candidate." The basic idea is that, facing a tough challenger (likely Gov. Jim Justice, R) if he tries to continue his Senate career, and a tough challenger (likely AG Patrick Morrisey, R) if he tries to regain the governorship of West Virginia, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) might try for a promotion and run president as a third-party alternative to Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

As readers will recall, there are a number of groups trying right now to put together a viable, centrist third party. And one of those is No Labels, which is making some amount of progress getting on the ballot in all 50 states. So, Manchin would theoretically run as that party's candidate. Speaking to reporters, the Senator helpfully pointed out that "I've been part of No Labels since December of 2010. It's the only game in town that wants to bring people together and get Democrats and Republicans working together."

We think The Hill, and the handful of other outlets that are reporting on a potential Manchin presidential campaign, should maybe be a wee bit less credulous, as this plan makes no sense whatsoever. It is true that there are currently more "independents" in the U.S. than there are registered Democrats or registered Republicans (it's about 32% to 28% to 25% for the three categories). However, most "independents" aren't actually independent, and certainly aren't going to vote for someone just because that person says they're not a Democrat anymore.

Meanwhile, the major sources of dissatisfaction with Joe Biden, among those folks who are likely to vote for him, are that he's too moderate/milquetoast, and that he's too old. Well, Manchin is even more aggressively moderate than Biden, and he's only 5 years younger. He is not a meaningful "alternative" to the President in the sense that word is generally used in politics.

Oh, and let's not forget that Manchin has quite a bit of baggage. He may not have broken the law, but the fortune he's derived from coal, a fortune that was often augmented thanks to his votes as a politician, has a distinct odor to it, and that odor ain't roses. The man also lives on a yacht when he's in Washington, and he's known for his lavish spending on food and other pleasures. If the Senator is placed under a presidential microscope, he's in for some unpleasant times.

What's clearly going on here is that Manchin is biding his time, and deciding which is more likely to be successful—a reelection bid, or a return-to-the-governorship bid (we think the former is clearly the smarter choice). And as he bides his time, it behooves the Senator to perform "I'm not really a Democrat" kabuki for voters in his ruby-red state as often, and as loudly, as is possible. Idle chit-chat about running for president as a third-party, centrist candidate serves that purpose very nicely.

And this isn't just our imagination. As Slate's Jim Newell points out, Manchin has been flailing about lately, trying to remake himself as King of the DINOs. That includes vocal criticism of Biden that is so sharp it might make Sean Hannity blush. And it includes opposition to legislation and to policies that Manchin was very openly for, until he was against. It's gotten to the point that many of Manchin's Democratic colleagues, even if they understand what he's doing, are sick of it, and want him to shut his yap.

So, yeah, don't be rushing out and buying those "Manchin for President" bumper stickers, t-shirts, and coal scuttles, because it's not happening. The Senator is many things, but stupid is not among them. (Z)

Hogan Makes It Official

As we noted yesterday, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) is retiring. Given that the Republicans need to flip just two seats in the Senate to retake control of that chamber, they sure would like to make a run at that open seat. As last year's results reminded everyone, it's way easier to win an open seat than it is to knock off an incumbent (incumbents have a 90% win rate in Senate races in general; last year it was 100%).

There's only one small fly in the ointment, however. As a very blue state, Maryland has plenty of Democrats champing at the bit for the chance to succeed Cardin, but not too many Republicans. Their one bright, shining ray of hope here would be former governor Larry Hogan, a popular moderate who won statewide election three times (once as secretary of appointments, twice as governor). If he jumped in, he'd probably still be a slight underdog, given the blueness of the state. However, slight underdogs win all the time; plus, if the Democrats were compelled to play defense in Maryland, that's fewer resources for the many, many other states the Party has to defend.

Those Republican operatives who dared to dream saw their hopes come crashing back down to Earth yesterday, as Hogan confirmed that Cardin's retirement has not changed anything, and that he's simply not interested in a Senate seat. Maybe Hogan doesn't want to wage a tough 18-month campaign for a coin flip chance at victory, at best. Maybe he doesn't want to start a U.S. Senate career at the age of 68, since he wouldn't start getting plum committee assignments until he was pushing 90.

It's still possible that the Maryland GOP could find a unicorn who can wage a competitive campaign. After all, Hogan wasn't a threat to Democrats until he went out there and won. But it is vastly more likely that the Republicans end up with a rich person who can self-fund and who is running a vanity campaign, or a nutty Trumper, or a rich nutty Trumper who can self-fund and who is running a vanity campaign. In any event, this seat is now safely D, despite Cardin's exit. (Z)

D.F. Headed back to D.C.?

This is a somewhat unorthodox bit of reporting. One of the questions that is on the mind of politics-watchers is: Whither Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)? If she's not willing to resign, is she going to be able to return to work? In particular, will she be able to get back to voting to approve judges, so they can advance to a floor vote on an 11-10 party-line vote? After all, a person can be in pretty bad shape, and yet can make a brief appearance in the Senate chamber to give a thumbs up.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been unwilling to answer questions about the plans of the most senior member of his caucus. Despite that, we know that he apparently thinks she'll be back at work within a week or so. How do we know that? This is where the reporting gets unorthodox. Schumer holds a press conference every week, to which he brings notes. Yesterday, press photographers managed to snap some pictures of his notes. And they quite clearly say: "I spoke with Sen. Feinstein yesterday. We are both hopeful she can return next week." You can see it for yourself:

We rotated the picture to make it more readable; when the picture was taken, the edge where Schumer's hand is was the top edge.

So, why does Schumer need notes to remember a phone conversation he had a day earlier? Why did he prepare a note on Feinstein if he wasn't prepared to share? And why isn't he willing to share? We do not know the answers to these questions, though we certainly wish we did.

There's one other piece of information that we, at least, interpret as a sign that Feinstein will return to work at some point in the near future: Democratic officeholders continue to criticize her and call for her resignation. The latest is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who said yesterday that the Senator is harming the federal judiciary and that she owes it to the country to retire. Our presumption is that if Feinstein was going to resign, Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries would be putting a lid on their caucuses, so as to give Feinstein some space to exit on her own terms. Readers may decide for themselves how much stock they put in our reasoning.

If Feinstein does return to D.C. in May, then AOC is wrong, and the Senator's absence will have done little harm. The Senate Judiciary Committee is not that backed up, and it hasn't had to postpone any really tough votes as yet. However, if Feinstein drags her feet for a few more months, then her absence will become an actual, serious impediment. Especially if the Senate leaves for its lengthy summer break and she's not yet back. (Z)

E-V.com Tracking Poll, May 2023, Presidential Edition

We noted yesterday that we've spent some time thinking about our tracking poll concept, and decided to expand and split it into two. So, we'll track readers' thoughts on the Senate in one monthly poll, and readers' thoughts on the presidential race in the other.

To start, here's how readers have had the two presidential races thus far:

Democratic Candidate	Jan. Rank	Feb. Rank
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA)	1	1
Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg	2	2
President Joe Biden	3	3
Vice President Kamala Harris	4	4
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI)	5	5
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)	6	6
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN)	7	7
Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD)	8	8
Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC)	N/R	9
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)	N/R	10
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)	9	N/R
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)	10	N/R

Republican Candidate	Jan. Rank	Feb. Rank
Former president Donald Trump	2	1
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)	1	2
Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH)	N/R	3
Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA)	3	4
Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo	4	5
Former Fox entertainer Tucker Carlson	6	6
Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley	N/R	7
Former vice president Mike Pence	5	8
Former Maryland governor Larry Hogan	7	9
Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson (R-AR)	8	10
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)	9	N/R
Former representative Liz Cheney	10	N/R

Our initial plan was to relegate the bottom two finishers and to add the top two suggested additions, but we think that's not nimble enough. So, we'll keep any candidate who seems worthy of the poll, but we'll only rank the top 10 in each installment. We've also exercised our editorial judgment to add a few people who didn't necessarily make sense back in February, when readers last made suggestions.

Also, given how the race is shaking out, the questions above may become uninteresting pretty quickly. So, we are going to add a regular second question asking which party is most likely to win the White House.

There's also a third, variable question each month. The one for February was about movies; we actually think the results are interesting enough that we're going to devote additional posts to them later in the week. For the May poll, the question will be: "If Joe Biden were to switch VPs, who would be the shrewdest alternative to Kamala Harris?"

Cast your ballots here! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger