Four takeaways from the budget deal

[BloombergOpinion]( [Early Returns]( [Jonathan Bernstein]( A new budget deal passed the House on Thursday and is expected to easily clear the Senate next week. Assuming it does (and President Donald Trump signs it), there will be no debt-limit worries for two years, no sequestration, and little chance of a government shut down. Here are a few other things we’ve learned from this episode. One is that it’s no coincidence that extended government shutdowns have happened in 1995-1996, 2013, and 2018-2019. They all began with Republican majorities in the House. So did the debt-limit brinkmanship of 2011. Although Democrats bargained hard for spending they wanted in this deal, they never really threatened to disrupt the government or the economy over it. Perhaps they’re more responsible than Republicans. But Democratic majorities have also always had substantive goals that they were out to achieve in these negotiations. Republicans? Not so much. They’re after confrontation for its own sake. Another takeaway was that Trump’s alleged control over the Republican Party was, as usual, shown to be illusory. Trump signed on to the budget deal, tweeted that Republicans “[should support](” it and then watched as they opposed it by a two-to-one margin. The dynamic among House Republicans is the same as it’s been for years: Radicals try to differentiate themselves from mainstream conservatives by opposing any compromise legislation, then mainstream conservatives, fearful of being called moderates, also vote “no.” That – and not Trump’s anger or his Twitter feed – is what they’re really afraid of. As a consequence, the party is collectively dysfunctional and its leaders lose leverage in negotiations. Meanwhile, the much-anticipated “Tea Party of the left” remains AWOL. Some Democrats certainly are very liberal, even more liberal than the bulk of the caucus, which is hardly a group of moderates. But while the “Squad” and some others might be ideologically extreme, they aren’t radicals – they’re willing to compromise and to accept half-victories when they’re available. This vote, in fact, [split the Squad](, and despite a lot of unhappiness over high levels of military spending, most of the handful of Democratic “no” votes came from the small group of moderates. One other thing: Republicans say they opposed the deal because of budget deficits. Don’t believe it. If you’re not willing to support any trade-offs to reduce the deficit, then you’re not actually concerned about it – and I didn’t hear any Republicans complaining that their leadership sold them out by accepting a larger deficit instead of lower defense spending or higher taxes. They’re not against larger federal budget deficits; they’re just against spending on programs they don’t like. In other words, this is the old [Republican War on Budgeting](. 1. Alan Abramowitz has a (very) preliminary [forecast of 2020 congressional elections](. 2. James Wallner notes that while Harry Reid restricted amendments in the Senate to an unprecedented degree when he was majority leader, [Mitch McConnell is so much worse]( that Republicans actually get fewer amendments now than they did during Reid’s time. 3. Perry Bacon Jr. on [Trump and identity politics](. 4. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Tyler Cowen on [housing](. 5. And Catherine Rampell on [Trump’s socialism](. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. [Click here to subscribe](hash=b9b2681361bede0e1069ca238efb1ec2). Also subscribe to [Bloomberg All Access]( and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](