The fact that they made it so the Medicaid cuts and extra requirements don’t take effect until after the 2026 election tells you everything you need to know about the harm they will do and what the reaction will be.
Congress loves to pass legislation with a delayed effect. We saw the Bush Tax Cuts phase in over a decade, only to suddenly Sunset and threaten an enormous tax spike. When Obama took office, he rallied a Democratic majority to save much of the Bush Tax Cut plan, for fear of upsetting the party’s mega-donors.
I guess we can ask the question of the next Congress. Will they defuse the Medicaid bomb and let their constituents eat shit? Or will they kick the can down the road again, because deficits are easier to stomach than unpopular social policy?
Five years ago, I’d have said kicking the can was the preferred strategy. But now? It seems like liberal and conservative politicians alike are nakedly embracing electoral nihilism, on the theory that gerrymandering and fear-mongering will guarantee their positions indefinitely regardless of public policy.
When asked for comment, Johnson looked puzzled and said, “Constituents?”
The only people he thinks he’s responsible to are enrolled in the White House medical plan.
These articles never seem to ask people who they voted for for congress and president.
I’ll give you one guess.
I’ll take Months that begin with “Feb” for $100
A lot of these seats are gerrymandered. A lot of the turnout is abysmal. Roughly 30-40 Congressfolks run completely unopposed year to year, with another 370 typically considered “Safe” seats thanks to incumbency, partisanship, and superior fundraising.
Only around 30 House seats a year are considered meaningfully competitive. And that’s assuming the candidate on the other side of the ballot is meaningfully distinct from the incumbent. Quite a few Blue Dog Democrats have been more than happy to embrace “Entitlement Cuts” and “Welfare Reform” when they come paired with kick backs to corporate donors and boosted military spending in their districts.
with another 370 typically considered “Safe” seats thanks to incumbency, partisanship, and superior fundraising.
Voters in these areas are the ones I don’t understand…I’d vote for anyone “not incumbent” so the electorate has a reset for that very reaon. It wouldn’t really matter who the incumbent is nor how deep their pockets…if you don’t, you’re stuck in the rut you point out here
Roughly 30-40 Congressfolks run completely unopposed year to year,
with no way out and end up with MJT representing you.
Vote 1 “Tim Bim Bustop Phatang Ole Biscuit Barrel”
Voters in these areas are the ones I don’t understand…I’d vote for anyone “not incumbent”
That’s part of the problem. You would vote for “anyone” but you can’t find a coalition (much less a majority) to back “a specific someone”.
By contrast, the incumbent proved that they could find a majority to back them. And every subsequent election involves going back to that winning base and saying “pick me again”. That’s a lot easier than building up a new unknown candidate from scratch.
with no way out and end up with MJT representing you.
I’m not sure who MJT is. But a lot of these candidates have to win hotly contested primaries. It isn’t like the voters just don’t have options. It’s that the options they have build voting coalitions by making common cause with some really shitty media moguls and money men.
