2013 is ending with a whimper on Capitol Hill. The Senate appears poised to advance the budget compromise on Tuesday, though getting 60 votes for cloture isn’t a cinch. Once the budget deal is cleared, there are lots of reasons why the next 11 months aren’t likely to be too active in Congress.
— Republicans — driven by the most conservative members of their caucus — took a stand during the government shutdown, and Democrats gained in most polls of the generic congressional ballot. Since then, the rocky rollout of the federal health care exchange has increased opposition to the controversial law, and Republicans have overtaken the Dems on the generic ballot, according to poll averages.
— That’s why the GOP is endeavoring to stay out of its own way. Compromises small in scope that avert confrontation — like the budget deal — are a good model for what Republicans might seek to do on the farm bill, for example. House Republicans understood that last week, when they voted — in much stronger numbers than their vote to end the shutdown in October — to approve the budget agreement. House Speaker John Boehner‘s strongly-worded rebuke of trouble-making conservative outside groups underscored the establishment’s frustration about the shutdown and their resolve not to botch this latest opportunity.
— There is still one, potentially major obstacle to the GOP’s prevent defense: the February debt-limit deadline. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Sunday Republicans would attempt to win concessions from Democrats in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. A fight over the debt limit introduces uncertainty — as would big, broad plans to overhaul the nation’s tax code and immigration laws.
At present, the trajectory of next year’s elections seems most closely tied to voters’ perceptions of the health care law and their opinions of President Obama‘s job performance. Unless those perceptions improve significantly, it’s unlikely Republicans will want to upset the apple cart before Election Day.
What We're Following See More »
The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.
Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.
A new report assembled by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified more than 500 potential conflicts of interest in President Trump's first year. First, the report notes, Trump spent 122 days at his properties during his first year. He has been accompanied by 70 federal officials and 30 members of Congress. "Second, far from this signaled access to power being an empty promise, those who patronize President Trump’s businesses have, in fact, gained access to the president and his inner circle." Lastly, about 40 special interest groups and 11 foreign governments have held events at Trump properties.