GOP Hawks vs The Putin Wing Of The Republican Party

Putin Expects More Than Just Parroting Of His Propaganda From Politicians He's Spent Money On

Earlier today we looked at how the Republicans are gearing up to fight the Democrats— and America— over a broad, reactionary vision of the role of government, using the national debt as a hostage. Actually, though, they have an intra-party battle before they go to war against the country. Writing for the Wall Street Journal this morning, Sioban Hughes noted that they’re fighting among themselves about what to cut— and how deeply— and what to leave alone. Generally speaking, the redder the district someone represents, the more they want to cut. The Representatives from the districts with the fewest Democrats and independents— Robert Aderholt (AL), Jason Smith (MO), Adrian Smith (NE), Josh Brecheen (OK), Diana Harshbarger (TN), Nathaniel Moran (TX), Ronny Jackson (TX) and Joey Arrington (TX)— basically want to shut down the whole government, end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and abolish all taxes beyond sales taxes… just enough for an army, their own salaries and crop subsidies.

Basically, all Republicans want to cut domestic spending. The intra-party battle is over military spending, specifically military spending that is seen as hostile towards Russia, a country the American far right identifies with now— which helps explain why they are so intensely anti-Ukraine. Hughes wrote that “Republicans will also need to decide whether they want to pursue money-saving changes to Medicare and Social Security, which many GOP lawmakers would like to tackle, but such a step is seen as politically perilous. The result of that debate will determine the GOP’s hand going into an expected high-stakes confrontation with Democrats over raising the debt ceiling, which the Treasury Department said must be addressed by early June. Many Republicans have said they see the debt ceiling— which must be raised so the Treasury can borrow more money to finance the nation’s existing obligations— as their prime opportunity to press for spending reductions in negotiations with the Senate, which Democrats control.”

Earlier this month, spending plans became a key part of negotiations between now-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and a group of holdouts including Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), which was blocking McCarthy’s path to the gavel. Under the agreement that got McCarthy voted in as speaker, the House Budget Committee, which is responsible for a budget blueprint, must produce a resolution that balances the budget in no more than 10 years.

According to the deal, the blueprint must use as its starting point the level of fiscal 2022 spending, said Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL), who was briefed by the deal’s negotiators and members of the House Appropriations Committee. That level would effectively erase the spending increase that Congress approved before Christmas in a $1.65 trillion omnibus bill, which all Democrats in both chambers and some Republicans supported.

In theory, resetting fiscal 2024 spending to 2022 levels would result in a roughly $130 billion cut in discretionary spending from current 2023 levels. That could include about a $75 billion cut to military spending. Alternatively, Republicans could decide to maintain or boost military spending at the expense of domestic programs. These so-called discretionary programs make up about one-third of the federal budget.

“There’s waste in every segment of the budget, including defense,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who has suggested another look at possible military-base realignments and closures. “There’s a lot in the defense budget that we need to look at, not on an across-the-board basis, but on an individual, item-by-item basis. And that’s true of the entire budget.”

Others cited weariness over funding related to the Russia-Ukraine war. “I think the mood of the country has shifted pretty much to no more Ukraine money,” said Doug LaMalfa (R-CA). “So I think they’re going to have to strongly demonstrate that it’s going to be a good value and the right priority,” he added.

Congress approved roughly $100 billion in aid for Ukraine last year with broad bipartisan support, but some Republicans have warned that they could try to block future funding.

Many have said military spending must be protected. “We can’t have China front and center and then end up going backwards on defense,” Waltz said. “This is all a battle to be had, and you’ve seen reflections of it.”

Republicans have said cuts are needed to shrink the federal deficit, which was roughly $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2022, which ended Sept. 30. The deficit is set to widen in coming years because of rising spending on [what right-wing propaganda outfits like the Wall Street Journal call] entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare and interest costs. Both parties have helped add to the deficit, through tax cuts as well as Covid-19 relief bills.

“We’ve got to change the way we are spending money wastefully in this country, and we’re going to make sure that happens,” McCarthy said at a press conference Thursday.

Democratic lawmakers and the White House have called the GOP’s effort to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling irresponsible and said that deep reductions in spending have no chance of passage.

…Because the agreement that cleared the way for McCarthy to become speaker leaves a lot of room for Republicans to sort out where to set military spending, and because members of the Appropriations Committee have regularly ignored resolutions from their budget-writing colleagues, some lawmakers who try to protect the national-security budget said they feel confident that military spending ultimately will be spared.

“We’re going to be needing to add to defense going forward,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, pointing to dangers in Ukraine and Afghanistan. “ I don’t think even a static budget makes a lot of sense.” Asked if military spending would be spared, Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger (R-TX) said: “I believe it will. That’s certainly my position.”

Other Republicans warn that nothing is settled. “We’re fighting hard for our national security,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Some Republicans are pushing for changes to programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are separate from discretionary spending. Together those two programs make up over a third of federal spending, and past efforts to reduce or adjust benefits have proved politically toxic.

“We have to deal with entitlements at some point,” Cole said. “It’s one of the great failures of Congress, both left and right. That doesn’t always mean cuts.” He pointed to Congress’s 1983 decision to follow the recommendations of a commission and gradually raise the age for receiving full retirement benefits to 67 years old for people born in 1960 or later.

A 2011 proposal by then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to lower Medicare costs was heavily criticized by Democrats. One ad cast the proposal as akin to rolling an elderly woman off a cliff. McCarthy has said he would protect Social Security and Medicare while also saying all costs need to be scrutinized.

A budget produced by the Republican Study Group, which represents a swath of conservatives, calls for saving money by bumping up the eligibility ages for full benefits for Social Security and Medicare. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX), who supports changing entitlement programs by raising the eligibility age, will take the lead on putting together the budget.

One Democrat said that Republicans’ plans will be unsettling for Americans and damage the GOP’s own political future.

“The Republican majority is going to relive their dreams again— Medicare, Social Security, raising the age, means-testing,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ). “ It’s a very important third rail. And politically, I think it’s a mistake.”

Long Island Republican George Santos, whose campaign was partially-- and illegally-- financed by Kremlin-connected Russian oligarchs Viktor Vekselberg and Leonid Blavatnik, bragged at CPAC that he had "been to Moscow many times." National security officials have warned that Santos was probably being groomed as a Russian agent. He regularly repeated Kremlin talking points about Ukraine, and even McCarthy, who refuses to push Santos out of Congress, recognizes Santos is working for the Russians and has said he will not be able to access any secret documents. Someone should ask McCarthy why.