Another'n

Democrats win another discharge petition, this time to force vote on federal worker bargaining rights

Legislation to restore union rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers is headed for a House vote.

The bill is opposed by the GOP leaders who control the lower chamber, but a bipartisan group of lawmakers this week very quietly secured the required 218 signatures on a discharge petition to sidestep Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and force the proposal to the floor.

The breakthrough, which was overshadowed by the week’s intense focus on the Jeffrey Epstein saga, sets the stage for the House to pass legislation returning the collective bargaining rights to federal employees who were stripped of those powers under an executive order signed by President Trump earlier in the year.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), the lead sponsor of the legislation, said House rules will allow him to call the bill for a vote as early as Dec. 2.

Labor supporters celebrated the development, with some hammering Trump and GOP leaders for attacking working-class people during a period when economic anxieties are already prevalent. They’re eager to highlight the issue with a House vote — and predict it will pass easily on the floor.

“Speaker Johnson is required, pursuant to the discharge petition, to set in motion an up-or-down vote on restoring collective bargaining for hardworking federal employees,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol. “And that’s a bipartisan discharge petition that will trigger that vote, so we know the votes exist in the House of Representatives.”

The discharge petition, championed by Golden and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), was introduced in June but was short of the 218 signatures needed to compel consideration of the underlying bill. That changed on Monday, when a pair of New York Republicans — Reps. Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler — endorsed the petition, which had been stuck at 216 signatures for more than two months.

The success of the petition is the latest setback for Trump, Johnson and other GOP leaders, who were forced by another discharge petition to swallow legislation this week forcing the Justice Department to release the full Epstein files — a bill Trump had fervently opposed.

The triumph of the back-to-back petitions has raised questions about Trump’s powers of influence over a House GOP conference he has typically bent to his will. But GOP supporters of the Golden petition said the pushback is not only justified, but constructive.

Rep. Don Bacon (Neb.), one of five GOP lawmakers who endorsed the petition, suggested the rogue Republicans were doing Trump a favor by strengthening the image of the party in the eyes of the labor movement.

“I think we have to force the issue on the president and the leadership. … It’s for the president’s own good,” Bacon said. “For him to rip up an agreement, I think it undermines him in the labor community.”

The legislation might not arrive, however, as a stand-alone bill. That’s because bipartisan negotiators are working separately to install the collective bargaining language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual Pentagon budget package. Because the NDAA is expected to pass through both chambers of Congress next month, Golden and other supporters of his bill see that as the preferred vehicle for securing the restoration of bargaining rights, which might be too controversial on their own to pass through the Senate.

“Right now, the language to restore those rights is in the NDAA, but there’s still negotiations [over] whether it’s going to stay in,” LaLota said. “So those who are righteous about this issue generally don’t want there to be a vote right now [on the Golden bill], and want to preserve the good faith that’s in the negotiations in the NDAA.”

“This is language that is in the NDAA already, that we’re just hoping doesn’t get stripped out.”

If it does get stripped out, it would almost certainly compel Golden to lean on the discharge petition to force a vote on his stand-alone bill.

If GOP leaders try to undermine the discharge petition in a rule, as they did earlier in the year on a successful petition related to proxy voting, Republicans say they’re ready to sink that rule to ensure the bargaining bill reaches the floor. Bacon noted six Republicans had initially blocked a GOP rule in September to leverage win concessions from Republican leaders on tariff policy.

“We let them know that’s not acceptable, so I hope they don’t do that,” Bacon said. “I mean, this is why we have a discharge petition process.”

“There will have to be a vote on it,” he added, “one way or the other way.”

At issue is an executive order, signed by Trump in March, that prohibits collecting bargaining for hundreds of thousands of federal employees across 18 federal agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services.

In a fact sheet accompanying the announcement, the White House said certain unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda” and argued the change was necessary to protect national security.

“President Trump is taking action to ensure that agencies vital to national security can execute their missions without delay and protect the American people,” the fact sheet reads. “The President needs a responsive and accountable civil service to protect our national security.”

Critics of the executive order have rejected the national security argument, noting that many of the affected federal employees work in industries that directly bolster the armed services and border security.

Others said they simply opposed the idea of scrapping a deal after it had been negotiated.

“When you have a labor agreement and then you just rip it up, it’s not right. And that’s essentially what President Trump did,” Bacon said. “When you sign an agreement, you live by it.”

The final stretch toward 218 signatures was not without some drama.

Lawler was in the hunt to be the 218th lawmaker to endorse the petition, putting it over the top, and had expected a House newcomer, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), to provide the 217th signature shortly after she was sworn in on Nov. 12.

Grijalva, however, was at the center of the weeks-long fight to be the 218th signature on the Epstein petition, which was delayed because Johnson refused to swear her in during the long government shutdown. With the government reopened last week, Democratic leaders wanted to keep the focus of Grijalva’s arrival squarely on the Epstein issue, and encouraged her to sign only the Epstein petition on the day she was seated, lest they dilute their own message. The others — including Golden’s petition and one sponsored by Jeffries to extend ObamaCare subsidies — could come later.

The delay drew howls from some of the New York Republicans, who accused Jeffries of delaying the process at the expense of federal workers.

Democrats, however, see the controversy as a victory, since it was not only Lawler who signed Golden’s petition this week, but LaLota as well — an additional Republican likely to help advance the bill if it comes to the floor on its own. That extra cushion could prove crucial, because one of the Democrats on the petition, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (N.J.), is expected to resign from the House on Thursday following her victory this month to become New Jersey’s next governor.

“Importantly, Democrats have ensured that there is now sufficient bipartisan support to withstand any procedural motions that try and kill this successful discharge petition,” Christie Stephenson, a Jeffries spokesperson, said Wednesday.

Today's Belle

Pointing out that Senate Republicans are trying some kind of end-around - and failing, because their word is worth nothing as of the last time they tried this shit, and they're working for Trump, whose word has never been worth the effort it takes to piss on it.

Today's Robert

"... and if the lights go out for a while, fuck it. So be it. The truth shines brightest in the dark anyway."

It Gets Weirder

There's no way for me to either confirm (or disprove) any of this, but Tizzyent has been pretty good at doing that kind of thing, and he seems pretty convinced. So I can weight this to the positive side, even though large grains of salt are in order.

Stalling

It's Trump's favorite play. Use every trick in the book to push your responsibilities out - to buy time, hoping people will stop thinking about it, or that somebody will come up with some bullshit that gets you off the hook.

Got It

Kelly Thompson is a recovering Republican - switched in 2016 - running to flip a red seat in Indiana's 3rd district.

Today's Belle

Republicans know they've got a real turkey on their hands, so they're thinking about changing the name to something they can use to scam the rubes with - again.

The Working Family Tax Cuts Law

Belle has several suggestions for alternate names, and I'm going to send them mine too.

• The Big Bamboozle Bill
• The Grandma Lives With You Now Bill
• The Boosting American Poverty and Crime Act
• The Yacht-Buyer Benefits Package
• The Busting Hospitals Act
• The Fuck The Farmers Initiative
• The Billionaires Win Again Bill
• The Dead Americans Non-Prevention Act

Today's Moment Of Shame

There are plenty of times when congress critters like to do things just because it'll embarrass the president.

This is kinda like that, except for the part about a president who likes to fuck girls who haven't come of age - a president who likely broke the law and did pretty much exactly what he's spent the last 10 years accusing his opponents of doing.

Hard to say how MAGA is going to react to their guys in congress moving officially to block the release when half of them have benefited from this horseshit for years too.

Daddy State Awareness Guide, Rule 1:

Every accusation is a confession.

The One Big Butt-Ugly Bamboozle

And this is just the tax stuff.

How Trump’s big bill will affect you, from Medicaid cuts to tax credits

The legislation has big implications for seniors, families, Medicaid recipients, immigrants and others.

Congress has signed off on a $3.4 trillion legislative package featuring new tax breaks, spending cuts, and more funding for defense and immigration enforcement, delivering President Donald Trump his “big, beautiful bill” despite rumblings from fiscal hawks about the projected $4 trillion it could add to the national debt over the next decade.

The expansive bill will affect nearly every American, regardless of their stage in life or income level. Here’s how it looks:

Seniors

Taxes: Middle-income seniors reaped one of the biggest tax breaks in the legislation — a new $6,000 deduction ($12,000 for a couple) for those 65 and older who earn as much as $75,000 per year (or $150,000 for a couple). The deduction decreases for higher earners, and it phases out altogether for singles who exceed $175,000 a year and couples after $250,000.

Health care: While many seniors rely on Medicare to cover their medical expenses, the federal health insurance program doesn’t cover long-term care. That means many older adults end up turning to Medicaid, the government health insurer for the poor, which covers more than 60 percent of the nation’s nursing home residents. The legislation’s deep cuts to Medicaid could force some nursing homes to shutter or scale back services, making it harder for seniors to find a spot in a facility.

Families

The bill includes several new and enhanced benefits for households with children, including:

Child tax credit: The tax credit is now $2,200 per child and will increase with inflation each year. But noncitizens are now barred from claiming it, even if their children are U.S.-born. And the legislation doesn’t include any changes for those whose incomes are too low to qualify for the full child tax credit — which means about 1 in 4 children.

$1,000 for babies: The legislation creates a tax-deferred investment account on behalf of children born from 2025 through 2028. The government will seed each one with $1,000, while parents, employers and nonprofits may also contribute to the accounts.

Adoption and parental leave: The bill bumps up the tax credit for filers who adopt a child to $5,000, which will also grow with inflation. It also expands small programs for businesses that provide parental leave and workplace day care programs.

Low-income households

Tax cuts: Without this bill, temporary tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term would have expired at the end of this year — driving up taxes for most households. Instead, the legislation will raise the standard deduction to $15,750 for an individual and $31,500 for a married couple, and will maintain the lower tax rates set in 2017.

Benefit cutbacks: The bill includes big cuts to health care programs such as Medicaid and anti-hunger initiatives such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Medicaid recipients could lose their coverage if they do not meet the program’s new work requirements or fail to regularly submit documentation proving they are working, volunteering or attending school at least 80 hours a month. And those in low-income households who are exempt from the Medicaid work requirements could still lose their health insurance if they don’t submit paperwork proving their exemption, such as pregnancy, a disability or certain types of caregiving.

Taken together, low-income households stand to lose more in benefits than they gain in tax breaks. A single parent who earns $20,000 a year, for instance, might save about $750 in taxes but lose benefits worth more than $1,600.

Middle-income households

Tax breaks: Families who don’t receive government assistance such as food stamps will mostly benefit from the tax cuts in the bill, including provisions to not tax certain overtime pay. Depending on where they live, some middle-income families will benefit from the higher limit on deducting state and local taxes from federal taxable income. After capping such deductions at $10,000 since 2017, the new bill raises that cap to $40,000 for households with income below $500,000, a boon to some families in high-tax states. But data shows that the SALT cap has always affected the rich much more than anyone else.

More middle-income families might choose to take advantage of a tax deduction rewarding charitable contributions, even for those who do not itemize on their returns.

For households squarely in the middle of the income distribution, those earning between $53,300 and $92,100, the average tax cut will be $1,510, according to analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

High-income households

Bigger tax breaks: Wealthy people will get the biggest tax cuts from the bill by far. While low-income families will see a modest change in their tax bills, most high-income households will pay much less than they otherwise would have.

According to ITEP’s analysis, 72 percent of the value of the tax cuts will go to the top 20 percent of earners — those making more than $153,600 — and more than 20 percent of the cuts will go to the top 1 percent, those earning more than $916,900.

Medicaid patients

Lost health care: The bill slashes about $1 trillion from Medicaid — the largest cut in the program’s history — and at least 17 million Americans are projected to lose health coverage or insurance subsidies that make coverage affordable, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Work requirements: The measure imposes work and reporting requirements for the first time on Medicaid recipients whose income is from 100 percent to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly $32,000 to $44,000 for a family of four). These are people who became eligible for Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program. Able-bodied adults between 19 and 64 years old will have to prove they are working, volunteering or going to school at least 80 hours a month. The bill provides exemptions for certain groups, including those who are pregnant, disabled or taking care of dependent children 13 or younger. States have to put these requirements in place by Dec. 31, 2026.

More documentation: Medicaid recipients will have to submit paperwork, such as pay stubs, proving they are meeting the work requirements. Even those who are exempt will have to demonstrate they are still eligible. Health care providers view these requirements as onerous and warn they will throw people off their coverage because many will struggle to stay on top of the paperwork or not even know about the change.

The bill requires states to do an extra eligibility check every six months, starting in 2027. That could open the door to people losing coverage midyear.

Tipped workers

Tax-free gratuities: The bill makes good on Trump’s campaign promise by excluding as much as $25,000 of tip income per year from taxation for workers earning as much as $150,000 ($300,000 for a couple). Those who exceed those pay levels would see a smaller deduction.

To ensure workers don’t reclassify income as tips to avoid paying taxes, the bill requires the Treasury Department to produce a list of professions that “customarily and regularly received tips” before the end of last year and will only allow workers in those fields to deduct their tips.

Immigrants

Tax credits disappear: Filers who don’t have Social Security numbers — generally noncitizens — can no longer claim the child tax credit even if their child is an American. Nor can they benefit from tax code changes that lift taxation on tips and overtime pay, or certain education credits under the bill.

College students

Education loans: The legislation repeals Biden-era student loan forgiveness programs. It also sets new repayment standards for borrowers, who make fixed payments for 10 to 25 years based on the terms of their loan. Under the means-tested plan, payments are between 1 and 10 percent of the principal, and borrowers can deduct $50 per payment for each of their dependents. Borrowers are rewarded for making on-time payments. Unpaid interest is waived, and the government will match $50 per payment on the loan principal. Any outstanding balance is forgiven after 30 years.

The Slotkin Plan

The Bloody Big Bamboozle Pared Down

When you sit down to do your budget, you prioritize the items on your list of things that are important - housing, groceries, transportation, etc.

If there's a few bucks left, you also decide what other stuff you might want to fund - savings, college fund for the kids, entertainment, travel, charities, church, etc.

After the essentials, you fund what matters to you. And that makes your budget a statement of your morality.

It should come as no surprise that Republicans don't give one empty fuck about anything but staying in power so they can put more Yacht Money in the very well-lined pockets of their fat cat "donors".

DONORS

RHYMES WITH

OWNERS

Senate parliamentarian’s no-go list: 12 pieces struck from Trump’s megabill

The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several controversial provisions in the GOP’s tax and spending package over the past few days.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) aims to have the “big, beautiful bill” on President Trump’s desk by July 4. But first, some of the megabill’s most controversial aspects must undergo the “Byrd bath,” a challenge of whether they are eligible under the Byrd Rule to be part of a reconciliation package that can pass with a 51-vote majority.

Republicans can still retool the provisions in an attempt to address the conflicts and resubmit them for review.

Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled several parts of the tax and spending legislation violate Senate rules and must taken out.

Here’s a look at what didn’t make the initial cut:

Change to Federal Employees Retirement System contributions
MacDonough ruled against language that proposed increasing the Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for new civil servants who refuse to become at-will employees. She argued the provision violates the Byrd Rule, which bars provisions that are considered “extraneous” to the federal budget.

State authorization to conduct border security and immigration enforcement
The megabill originally included language that gave states the authority to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, a responsibility that has traditionally fallen on the federal government. MacDonough rejected this language, ruling it violates the Byrd Rule.

Measure to limit court contempt powers
The parliamentarian rejected a measure in the bill that would have made it harder for courts to enforce lawsuits against the Trump administration. The measure targeted preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges against Trump’s executive orders and other directives. MacDonough argued that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump in contempt violates Senate rules.

Language barring noncitizens or permanent residents from receiving SNAP
Last week, MacDonough ruled against a measure that prevented immigrants who are not yet citizens or lawful permanent residents from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

She also rejected another SNAP-related provision that required states to pay a percentage of food assistance under SNAP depending on their individual error rates in delivering food aid. The provision required states to pay between 5 percent and 15 percent of food benefits in 2028, depending on their error rate. Nearly every state has had SNAP error rates of 6 percent or higher.

Extending the suspension of permanent price support authority
MacDonough pushed back against a Republican measure that sought to extend the suspension of permanent price authority, which has traditionally been a part of the farm bill.

The original bill had attempted to end a long-held farm bill practice in which farm commodity programs — the network of subsidies for products such as dairy, corn or rice — that underpin large-scale U.S. agriculture expire every few years, effectively forcing congressional Republicans back to the negotiating table annually to participate in the grand bargain of SNAP and conservation funding in return for farm welfare.

The measure knocked down by the parliamentarian would have extended those subsidies past their normal cutoff to expire in 2031 — which advocates of sustainable agriculture and SNAP warn would have removed any need for farm state legislators to pass any farm bill this decade, because they would have gotten what they needed.

While this would be within bounds of a normal farm bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that legislators couldn’t do it through reconciliation and would therefore need to come up with 60 votes.

Funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
MacDonough has ruled against a provision that would have essentially eliminated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by placing a cap on its funding. The provision would have lowered the agency’s maximum funding to zero percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses.

She also ruled against several other measures that fell under the control of the Senate Banking Committee, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. One would have cut $1.4 billion in federal costs by lowering the Federal Reserve staff pay.

MacDonough also rejected measures that proposed cutting more than $1 billion in costs by slashing the Office of Financial Research funding and getting rid of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Selling off millions of acres of public land
The Senate parliamentarian ruled against a provision championed by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would have sold off millions of acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land in up to 11 states.

Lee, in a post on the social platform X, said he would revamp the plan. The new legislation will still sell off land owned by the Bureau of Land Management — but not land owned by the Forest Service.

He also said he would “SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE” the amount of land in the bill, limiting it only to lands within 5 miles of a population center.

Easing offshore oil and gas project compliance
MacDonough blocked a provision that would deem offshore oil and gas projects as automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act.

She also rejected a measure in the bill that required offshore oil and gas leases to be issued to successful bidders within 90 days after their sale.

She also said Republicans could not include a provision in the bill that requires the Interior secretary to OK the construction of Ambler Road, a more than 200-mile-long access road that would facilitate the development of four large mines and hundreds of smaller mines in northern Alaska.

Forcing the Postal Service to sell electric vehicles
The bill originally contained language that sought to undo Biden administration rules meant to encourage electric vehicle use. The Senate parliamentarian rejected a provision that would force the General Services Administration, which handles the equipment used by government agencies, to sell all the eclectic vehicles used by the U.S. Postal Service.

However, a policy that would rescind funds passed by Democrats to allow the Postal Service to purchase extra electric vehicles and charges is still in the bill.

Repeal EPA rule limiting air pollution emitted by passenger vehicles
The bill targeted several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, including one that restricts air pollution emissions from passenger vehicles. MacDonough said late last week that Republicans could not include that measure in the “big, beautiful bill.”

Allowing project developers to bypass judicial environmental reviews
Republicans also wanted to change the National Environmental Policy Act to allow project developers to fast-track environmental reviews or prevent judicial reviews if they paid a one-time fee, according to Politico. MacDonough ruled against the measure.

Altering the REINS Act
MacDonough also said Republicans could not include a modified version of the REINS Act in the bill. The measure would have increased congressional power over big regulations, according to Axios.

The Bloody Big Bamboozle

True to form, Republicans in the Senate are diving deep into SmarmSpace©, looking for loopholes - or ways to manufacture some - and trying to come up with the best possible turd polish.

But going so far out of their way to smash-fit some of the ridiculous junk they got from the House into the parliamentary rules, is leading to some interesting examples of self-inflicted wounds.

eg: Ted Cruz (the oiliest of the oily) has rewritten the part about punishing states for regulating AI, but President Yamface has already embarked on a mission to kill funding for states if they dare go against the Tech Lords, so the states might as well do what they want because they don't stand to lose what they weren't going to get anyway. (this fun, isn't it?)

Belle has a good list of items (so far) that are being drowned in the Byrd-Bath.

Warrior Spirit

Mallory McMorrow brought the fire 2 years ago, and she continues the good fight.

This is the warrior spirit that we have to internalize in order to wield it against the dark forces.

Current Sen Gary Peters is not running for re-election in 2026.

Donate

Working At it

Pushback

Julie Johnson (D - TX32)

Today's Melanie

Melanie Stansbury is bringing the fire.

Bad Government

This is shitty power exemplified.

Once Republicans lined up behind the dumbass generic notions that people can't possibly be working if they're working from home, and that voting any way other than in person is outright fraud, they can't help but apply their shit in a thick even coat across everything they see.

They want us to believe they're just adhering to principle, but we all know they have no principles because they keep talking one way and then doing things that run opposite to what they say.

This is as perfect an example as anything. They yell about freedom and democracy, and then do whatever they can to keep certain people from freely exercising their right - even duty - to vote. Especially when it comes to women.

Case in point:

Johnson fails to kill bipartisan measure to allow proxy voting for new parents

After the vote, Speaker Mike Johnson abruptly canceled votes for the rest of the week

WASHINGTON — Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday tried and failed to kill a bipartisan effort to change House rules so that lawmakers would temporarily be allowed to vote remotely after the birth of a child, suffering an embarrassing defeat that paralyzed the chamber and signaled that the proposal could soon be adopted.

Using strong-arm tactics in a bid to block the measure, Johnson tried an extraordinary use of the speaker’s power to prevent the House from even considering a measure backed by half its members. But nine Republicans refused to go along, instead dealing him a public rebuke that left him without a strategy for moving ahead.

After the vote, Johnson abruptly canceled votes for the rest of the week, sending members home and leaving legislative business unsettled. Under House rules, Republican leaders are required to bring the proxy voting resolution to a vote within two legislative days. But they appeared to be refusing to do anything else until the holdouts in their party cave, which they have shown no sign of doing. As Republicans left Washington for the week having passed no bills, it was not clear how or when the issue would be resolved.

The showdown on the House floor was a capstone of a long-running fight over the rights of new parents in Congress.

It began over a year ago, when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., began agitating for a change to House rules that would allow new mothers to designate a colleague to vote by proxy on their behalf for up to six weeks after giving birth. Luna landed on the idea after her own child was born.

There is no maternity or paternity leave for lawmakers, who can take time away from office without sacrificing their pay but cannot vote if they are not physically in the Capitol. Proponents of the change have called it a common-sense fix to modernize Congress, where more women and more younger members serve now than did 200 years ago.

Democrats, including Reps. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, who gave birth this year to her second child, and Sara Jacobs of California, joined Luna’s effort, expanding the resolution to include new fathers and up to 12 weeks of proxy voting during a parental leave.

Johnson has adamantly opposed the group at every turn, arguing that proxy voting is unacceptable and unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court refused to take up a Republican-led lawsuit challenging pandemic-era proxy voting rules in the House.

On Tuesday, he used an unprecedented parliamentary maneuver to close off the only path that members of the House have for steering around their leaders and forcing a vote on a measure that has majority support.

But that measure failed on the floor by a 222-206 vote, keeping alive the proxy voting proposal. Eight Republicans joined Luna and all Democrats in voting no.

Johnson and his allies have argued that any accommodation that allows members to vote without being at the Capitol, no matter how narrow, creates a slippery slope for more, and that it harms member collegiality.

“I do believe it’s an existential issue for this body,” Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., who chairs the Rules Committee, said Tuesday. “Congress is defined as the ‘act of coming together and meeting.’”

Later on the floor, Foxx asserted flatly: “Put simply, members of Congress need to show up for work.”

When Johnson refused to bring the bill to the floor, Luna and her cohorts used a tool called the discharge petition — a demand signed by 218 members of the House, the majority of the body — to force consideration of the measure.

But on Tuesday morning, Republicans on the Rules Committee, often referred to as the “speaker’s committee” because the speaker uses it to maintain control of the floor, engineered a tricky behind-the-scenes maneuver to kill the effort.

They approved a measure that would block the proxy voting bill or any legislation on a similar topic from reaching the floor during the remainder of the Congress, effectively nullifying the discharge petition and closing off any chance for its supporters to secure a vote on the matter for the next two years.

GOP lawmakers inserted it into an unrelated resolution to allow for a vote on the SAVE Act, legislation requiring people to prove their citizenship when they register to vote, in a bid to pressure Republicans to support it. That is the measure that failed Tuesday on the floor.

Democrats implored Republicans to consider the proxy voting change, which they argued was vital to allowing all lawmakers to do their jobs.

“It is unfathomable that in 2025 we have not modernized Congress to address these very unique challenges that members face — these life events, where our voices should still be heard, our constituents should still be represented,” Pettersen said on the House floor, holding her 9-week-old son, Sam, who gurgled in her arms.

She denounced Johnson’s maneuver, saying: “It is anti-woman. It is anti-family.”

They also called the move an unprecedented attempt to shut down a crucial mechanism in the House for ensuring that measures that have majority support are voted upon.

“Republicans love to talk about family values, but when given the chance to actually support families, they turn their backs,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. “If you want to protect your rights as members of Congress, you should vote no here.”

In trying to block the measure, Johnson took a gamble, risking public humiliation in a bid to thwart a resolution that had support from members of both parties.

Johnson even leaned on President Donald Trump to help him, people familiar with the conversations said, hoping the president could urge Luna, a stalwart Trump supporter, to stand down. The pressure campaign, however, appeared to have only strengthened Luna’s resolve.

On Monday, Luna resigned from the House Freedom Caucus, citing its members’ unwillingness to back her in what she called a “modest, family-centered proposal.”

After the vote Tuesday, she told reporters the proposal would improve the House and the country.

“We had a good majority of Republicans as well that agreed this needs to change and it’s part of a healthy republic,” she said. She added that it was a big day for the institution “and allowing new parents to have a voice in Washington.”

Johnson’s view is in line with the longtime Republican position on proxy voting.

Republicans savaged Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for breaking with centuries of history and House rules by instituting proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic. When he was minority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., filed an unsuccessful lawsuit arguing that allowing a member of Congress to deputize a colleague to cast a vote on their behalf when they were not present was unconstitutional.

Rhyming History

In the Upside Down

Dateline Washington, 1940:

Speaker of The House Sam Rayburn today called on Winston Churchill to resign, demanded the UK cede Scotland to Germany, and the US halt Lend Lease immediately - in the noble pursuit of a lasting peace with Mr Hitler.

Johnson says Zelenskyy may need to resign

Speaker Mike Johnson said Zelenskyy either needs to “come to his senses” or step down to end the war in Ukraine.

Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy might need to resign to bring peace to his country following a contentious meeting between Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on Friday.

“Something has to change,” Johnson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, echoing comments made Friday by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Either he needs to come to his senses and come back to the table in gratitude, or someone else needs to lead the country to do that.”

Johnson’s comments on Sunday come on the heels of a heated exchange between Zelenskyy, Trump and Vance in the Oval Office on Friday, where Zelenskyy was accused of not sharing enough gratitude for U.S.’s role in trying to end the war and not wanting to come to a peace agreement.

“The fact that he acted as he did, I think, was a great disappointment,” Johnson said of Zelenskyy’s behavior in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The meeting was supposed to be followed by the signing of a minerals deal aimed to provide future security guarantees for Ukraine. However, the rest of Zelenskyy’s visit was canceled after the Oval Office argument, with Trump posting to the social media platform Truth Social that Zelenskyy “disrespected the United States in its cherished Oval Office” and can only “come back when he is ready for Peace.”

Zelenskyy was subsequently ejected from the White House, leading to additional criticism of Trump for his rhetoric and behavior that day.

On Saturday, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski — a sometimes critic of Trump since he returned to office — disparaged Trump’s behavior toward Zelenskyy on Friday in a post to X, saying the U.S. is “walking away from our allies and embracing Putin.”

On CNN, Johnson said the Alaska Republican is “plainly wrong,” adding that “the person who walked away from the table yesterday was President Zelenskyy.”

While Johnson offered support for Trump on blaming Zelenskyy for Friday’s failed meeting, he did criticize Russia and Putin in both interviews — something Trump has shied away from doing, particularly since returning to office.

“I’d like to see Putin defeated, frankly,” Johnson said on NBC. “He is an adversary of the United States. But in this conflict, we’ve got to bring it into this war. It’s in everybody’s interest.”

“Putin is the aggressor,” Johnson said on CNN. “It is an unjust war. We have been crystal clear about that.”

Bye, Mitch

Can you say ignominious end? I knew you could.

If you've worn out your welcome to the point that almost nobody notices when you wave bye-bye, it's more than just a little humiliating.

And I can't think of anybody more deserving of that kind of swift kick in the balls than Mitch McConnell.

There was a time I could've tipped my hat and said a gallant farewell to a worthy adversary. But we have a ridiculously hard right Supreme Court because of him. And we're saddled with this totally fucked up Trump 2.0 because of him.

So fuck off, Mitch. I hope you get ass cancer and die a slow painful death.

Mitch McConnell arrives in hell, and is greeted by the New Arrivals Orientation demon who tells him he has his choice among three options for how he'll spend eternity.

They go thru a door into a room filled with guys swimming laps in a pool filled with liquified pig shit and slimy moldering garbage.

 

In the next room, everybody's wrestling naked with porcupines in a cactus patch while hovering vultures peck out their eyes.

 

In the third room is Joe Stalin, strapped to a bed of sharp stones while Monica Lewinski blows him.

The demon tells Mitch to choose, and Mitch says he'll go with the third option. And the demo says, "OK, thanks, Monica - you can go now."

Mitch McConnell’s Senate Reign Ends With a Whimper

After nearly four decades of quietly and shrewdly amassing power, “Old Crow’s” farewell tour has been overshadowed by health hiccups and the chaos of Trump 2.0, with little to no fanfare. “Mitch McConnellism,” as one Kentucky radio host says, “is dead.”

Senator Mitch McConnell stood on the Senate floor last week on his 83rd birthday to announce that he would not seek an eighth term as Kentucky’s senior senator in 2026. “My current term in the Senate will be my last,” he muttered in his signature gravelly drawl. The response was tepid. So much so that North Carolina Republican senator Thom Tillis had to request unanimous consent for a 30-second round of applause. About 20 senators, six pages, and a smattering of floor staff slowly rose to their feet to clap, breaking a few seconds early to move onto other matters.

It was a subdued send-off, symbolizing an unlikely fate for the most influential Senate Republican leader of the last half-century, a man who built the modern GOP in his own image—only to find himself abandoned by it in old age. Indeed, the party he so ruthlessly shaped over his four-decade senatorial career has been hijacked by Donald Trump, a man he reportedly personally detests but whose political rise he enabled. Now, as Trump’s grip on the Republican Party tightens, McConnell is taking his final bow as a relic of a political era—one of quiet plotting and backroom dealmaking—that no longer exists.

“‘Mitch McConnellism’ as a political philosophy is dead,” Matt Jones, a Louisville sportscaster who considered a Senate run against McConnell in 2020, told me.

To be sure, McConnell’s swan song hasn’t been without bite: In a December essay, the outgoing senator openly criticized the right’s isolationist rhetoric on foreign policy, and lamented that Trump has “courted Putin” and “treated [NATO] allies and alliance commitments erratically and sometimes with hostility.” More recently, he was one of three Senate Republicans to vote against the confirmation of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—a move that Senator Jack Reed told me he personally found “courageous.” McConnell was also the only senator to vote against confirming Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Needless to say, it was a strange sight to see McConnell, once the Senate GOP’s ideological lodestar, become the lone holdout in a conference of his own making. Still, “he loves the Senate,” Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, told me during a hallway interview Tuesday, “and he’s very concerned that we keep the Senate as our founders intended it to be.”

To Trump’s presumptive delight, McConnell did join the GOP fold in voting to confirm Kash Patel for a 10-year term as FBI Director. “I hope and expect he will move quickly to reset the Bureau with greater transparency, accountability, and cooperation with Congress,” the senator said in a statement after the vote.

On Wednesday, I asked McConnell to elaborate further on that position. “I think I’m going to continue my habit of not doing press between the Capitol and here,” he laughed. “Good try!”

I expected just as much; McConnell famously avoids hallway interviews with the Capitol press, walking blankly through our questions, offering nothing that can be used in a news story. “He used to have selective hearing,” Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said of McConnell. “Now his hearing now is just not that good because he’s old. But it used to be fine, it was just selective…. You guys, as reporters, might have noticed that.”

For decades, McConnell was the undisputed architect of Republican power in Washington. He turned obstructionism into an art form, blocking Democratic priorities with cold efficiency. In 2016, he famously refused to grant a hearing to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, arguing that the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat should be filled by the next president because it was an election year. Four years later, McConnell did the exact opposite, ramming through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation mere weeks before the 2020 election. It was a duplicitous maneuver with major consequences, securing him a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, whose makeup likely would have been the inverse if McConnell had abided by Senate precedent.

But the scheme was also peak McConnell, whose influence was never about fiery speeches or ideological grandstanding. Rather, he employed private cunning and an economy of words, rarely speaking unless it served his political ends. “To Mitch McConnell, communication means giving things away. If he tells people what he is up to, they may be able to use that against him,” said New York Times reporter Carl Hulse at the beginning of Trump’s first term in 2016.

McConnell himself once acknowledged this strategy. “I was hoping some reporter would ask me a question about anything,” he once joked to Hulse, recalling his early days in the Senate. “Now I spend most of my time smiling sweetly at you guys and walking on by.”

That discipline served him well for some time during the Trump era. But McConnell’s relevance was clearly fading by the 2020 election, the violent aftermath of which offered him one of few opportunities to rid the party of Trump for good. In the end, the then Senate majority leader voted against convicting Trump of inciting an insurrection. Meanwhile, his refusal to engage in the performative outrage that defines Trump-era politics became a liability in a party increasingly driven by personality cults and grievance politics. Trump eventually dubbed him “Old Crow,” a moniker McConnell wryly embraced and one that bemused his colleagues. “It was right after he was called ‘Old Crow’ and I think I got like an Old Crow bourbon as a gift from Mitch,” Republican senator Lisa Murkowski recounted to me. Still, the insult underscored the president’s growing stranglehold on the GOP as the party slowly slipped through the senator’s fingers.

McConnell’s body has been failing him lately—he’s suffered multiple falls, at times requiring a wheelchair. Last August, he froze at the podium during the weekly GOP leadership press conference, prompting John Barrasso to assist his exit. After he reemerged for questions, I asked the then ghostly pale senator whether he had a replacement in mind. McConnell laughed out loud, refused to take any more questions, and walked away with his then heir apparent John Thune, now the new majority leader.

But more than his health, it’s McConnell’s political standing that has deteriorated beyond repair. It now belongs to Trump, whose loyalists have taken over the Republican Senate conference and who delights in humiliating the senator whenever possible. Once the most feared man in Washington, McConnell has become an afterthought, unable to stop Trump-aligned candidates from winning primaries and reshaping the GOP in their leader’s image.

When McConnell takes his official exit, a power vacuum will emerge. Kentucky attorney general Daniel Cameron, a McConnell protégé turned Trump loyalist, is already eyeing his seat. What’s left for McConnell in the meantime? A slow farewell tour, another potential slate of contrarian—but inconsequential—votes, maybe a few more sound bites, and a quiet retreat into irrelevance. McConnell, the turtle who outlasted them all, is finally crawling away.

Hopefully, A Rising Star

@repstansbury

Why is the GOP shielding Elon Musk from Oversight!?  Maybe…because while we’re sitting here he’s dismantling agencies, threatening national security, stealing our data, and breaking the law.  Dems are not clutching our pearls.  Dems are fighting back.  And we won't stop!

♬ original sound - Rep. Melanie Stansbury