It had been 100 years since electing a speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives took more than one ballot.

It had been more than 150 years since electing a speaker took more than the 15 ballots it took in 2023.

Yet a group of House members understood that the number of them exceeded their party’s new-majority margin in the House, so this was a good time to take on what they view as the Washington swamp.

They understood that the name calling against them – and the charges that their actions would (fill in the blank with the usual charges) – would quickly subside.

They further understood that what they accomplished would affect the House long after the name calling and the usual charges subsided.

ı ı ı

So what did they accomplish?

Well, the New York Post, the country’s oldest newspaper, asked and answered that question on Jan. 7.

After reading the New York Post story, one is left asking: What’s wrong with any of this? Why is any of this a big deal?

According to the Post, the accomplishments include these:

¯ First, Freedom Caucus members will get “several seats on the crucial House Rules Committee and House Appropriations Committee.”

Why shouldn’t two committees that help set the House agenda and decide how to spend money reflect the diversity of ideas across the majority party?

Or, for that matter, the minority party?

After all, the diversity that, at the end of the day, really, truly matters most is diversity of ideas, not diversity of chromosomes.

With the Freedom Caucus having “several seats on the crucial House Rules Committee and House Appropriations Committee,” those committees will better reflect the diversity of ideas in the majority party.

¯ Second, “a single member will be allowed to introduce a ‘motion to vacate (the chair),’ a vote on ousting the speaker, House insiders confirmed. Previous versions of the rules deal would have required five members to make such a motion.”

It’s true that this allows one member alone to cause turbulence. Yet no matter how many members it takes to make such a motion, it still needs a majority to pass.

It could be one, five, or however many. It still needs a majority to pass.

¯ Third, Freedom Caucus members gained a “promise for guaranteed votes on pet issues, (such as) a balanced-budget amendment, and term limits, a Texas border plan, and an end to all remaining coronavirus mandates and funding.”

Maybe you want a balanced-budget amendment, term limits, a Texas border plan, or an end to all remaining pandemic-related mandates and spending.

Maybe you don’t.

Maybe you’re in favor of terms limits yet with longer limits than some Freedom Caucus members propose.

Maybe you’re not.

Yet what’s wrong with voting on a balanced-budget amendment, term limits, a Texas border plan, or an end to all remaining pandemic-related mandates and spending?

This rings of 1995, when the new majority kept its 1994-election promise to vote on particular issues.

¯ Fourth is a “new committee to investigate the alleged weaponization of the FBI against its political foes.”

¯ Fifth is more “single-subject bills to allow members to vote on specific, narrow issues instead of thousand-page pork barrel behemoths.”

¯ Sixth is a “72-hour window for members to read any new bill before it can be voted on.”

¯ Seventh is a “promise to refuse any increase in the debt ceiling in the next federal budget agreement.”

With White House policies having induced inflation unlike what the United States has experienced since the defeat of the stagflation induced in the 1970s, Americans have had to tighten their belts. Is it beyond the pale that government should tighten its belt too?

ı ı ı

Now back to the two questions: What’s wrong with any of this? Why is any of this a big deal?

None of this is a big deal, in the sense that nothing is wrong with any of this, unless it stands in the way of one’s agenda.

Which much of it does for statists.

Many of these reforms spell trouble for statism.

Randy Elf joins those who see nothing wrong with any of this.

COPYRIGHT ç 2023 BY RANDY ELF