Will the issues you care about be priorities for a Trump-family run RNC?

[Ken]

The DNC’s problem isn’t Warren or Sanders; it’s the near-complete takeover of the party by corporate interests and gigantic PACs. The Super PACs have a much bigger budget than the DNC does.

A healthy democracy has healthy opposition parties. In America today we have two parties that are essentially owned and controlled by unaccountable corporate interests.

Yep, your own Senator Vance there in Ohio is a perfect example of someone bought and paid for by corporate millions. How much did Peter Thiel drop into that race via super PACs to buy his own Senator?

Apparently he isn’t on Norfolk Southern’s payroll. Vance has been a cosponsor of populist legislation now multiple times, including with Sherrod Brown.

Co-sponsoring legislation is the game they do when they want to look like they are doing something without actually doing anything. We had a congresswoman out here who would sign onto every popular looking piece of legislation as a "co-sponsor" and her office would send out slick press releases about all the stuff she had "done" which the local press would dutifully pick up and run to give her constant good press. It was all a charade. She wasn't ever actually doing anything and neither was Congress.

Has he actually accomplished anything? Has any legislation he sponsored or co-sponsored made it into law? That is the real question. That is the hard part. It takes leadership and the ability to persuade your colleagues and cut deals to get things done rather than grandstanding and putting out press releases. That is the difference between workhorses and show ponies.

[Josh]

OK, Ken.

[Ken]

OK, Ken.

I don't know the answer. You tell me. Is your new bought-and-paid-for Senator actually accomplishing anything for Ohio or not?

And no: "co-sponsoring legislation" doesn't count as accomplishing anything. It just means you put your name on something that some committee or subcommittee staff actually wrote.

[Josh]

Co-sponsoring legislation is basically how the Senate operates. They don’t originate most bills anyway. Their function is to affirm things the House passes.

So, please do lecture us on what you think our Senators (or yours) should be doing.

[Ken]

Co-sponsoring legislation is basically how the Senate operates. They don’t originate most bills anyway. Their function is to affirm things the House passes.

So, please do lecture us on what you think our Senators (or yours) should be doing.

Only spending bills start in the House. All other legislation can start in either chamber.

And even spending bills can start in either chamber in practice and they can follow parallel tracks. All that happens when say the Senate does a Defense funding bill and the House does a Defense funding bill is that they use the House bill number when they reconcile them so that it was the bill that originated in the House that is eventually passed. Even if what they actually did was just replace the text of the House bill with the Senate version.

And I don't necessarily think your Senator should be doing any specific thing. But if he (or you) want to cite "accomplishments" then cite actual accomplishments that go beyond putting your name on something that was almost certainly written by congressional staffers in one of the subcommittees. That isn't an accomplishment. The actual hard work of legislating isn't writing the legislation (or co-sponsoring it). It is getting it passed.

A lot of "bought and paid for" Senators are actually there in the Senate to NOT accomplish things and to prevent the Senate from actually taking action that might affect one industry or interest group or another. And most of that work is done behind the scenes while they pretend that they are actually doing things. That is one of the most corrosive effects of money in politics. It is there to obstruct.

[Josh]

I’m perfectly fine with a Senator that stops things from happening. I would be mostly happy with a lot less federal government interfering in our lives, spending money they don’t have, and taxing us to the last penny.

[Ken]

I’m perfectly fine with a Senator that stops things from happening. I would be mostly happy with a lot less federal government interfering in our lives, spending money they don’t have, and taxing us to the last penny.

So then what was this business about Norfolk Southern? Did you change your mind and now you don't want to see any improvements in rail safety? And you are happy with a Senator who just grandstands on the topic but doesn't actually do anything?

That is probably exactly what Norfolk Southern wants too.

But OK...

[Josh]

I’m perfectly fine with a Senator that stops things from happening. I would be mostly happy with a lot less federal government interfering in our lives, spending money they don’t have, and taxing us to the last penny.

So then what was this business about Norfolk Southern? Did you change your mind and now you don't want to see any improvements in rail safety? And you are happy with a Senator who just grandstands on the topic but doesn't actually do anything?

That is probably exactly what Norfolk Southern wants too.

But OK...

Actually, there are already plenty of laws about safety and environmental destruction on the books. Not to mention labour laws. Big business is just able to get away with breaking them, over and over.

Like it or not Ken this is something both parties are equally responsible for. But no, Vance is one of the Senators less in the pocket of big business.

[Ken]

I’m perfectly fine with a Senator that stops things from happening. I would be mostly happy with a lot less federal government interfering in our lives, spending money they don’t have, and taxing us to the last penny.

So then what was this business about Norfolk Southern? Did you change your mind and now you don't want to see any improvements in rail safety? And you are happy with a Senator who just grandstands on the topic but doesn't actually do anything?

That is probably exactly what Norfolk Southern wants too.

But OK...

Actually, there are already plenty of laws about safety and environmental destruction on the books. Not to mention labour laws. Big business is just able to get away with breaking them, over and over.

Like it or not Ken this is something both parties are equally responsible for. But no, Vance is one of the Senators less in the pocket of big business.

I 100% agree that both parties are responsible for gridlock. I'm not naïve about that. And there are plenty of politicians on both sides that are bought and paid for by PAC money. Your Senator is just a particularly egregious example because it was one billionaire who bought him, not 50 different PACs. And he is more of a show pony than workhorse.

Right now it is mostly the House that is the cause of gridlock and inaction. They can't do anything over there because the are beholden to a handful of right wing arsonists who would rather just burn the place down than pass any legislation or budgets. And the whole GOP is beholden to them because without them they would their majority and Johnson would lose his speakership just like McCarthy. So rather than voting on things and voting them down, the just block them from ever reaching the floor in the first place. That is the best way to kill things, just prevent any votes from ever happening. That way you don't ever get negative votes on your record.

In the prior Congress it was mostly the Senate that was responsible for gridlock not the House. So these things come and go.

What does that have to do with the RNC? Not a whole lot except that I suspect with the Trump family taking over they will spend all their money on Trump and far less on down-ballot races. Which will mean in the long run, a possible Trump presidency would be less effective because he will have less allies in Congress and those who do win from the GOP will be less beholden to him and the RNC since they will have done it by themselves. That is one of the main ways that parties maintain control. They help people win elections. And if they aren't going to do that then they don't have much purpose and there isn't much reason for elected officials to defer to them or follow their lead.

[Josh]

Meanwhile, in the actual real world, Trump seems to be exerting more and more influence over the Republican House, not less.