By Lambert Strether of Corrente.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Somebody tell Steve Bannon: Here is a strategy for MAGA to win on H1B. Congress is so closely divided that even a few members hold veto power over the House\u2019s choice of a Speaker. Take these steps: This week, form a MAGA caucus (minimum size: four. See below). Then, when Congress reconvenes at noon ET on January 3, the MAGA caucus should deny their votes to any Speaker nominee. No speaker can be elected. Without a Speaker, the House cannot function, let alone count and certify the results of the Electoral College<\/a> so that Trump can take the oath of office on January 20. The only way out: The Republican Party agrees to the MAGA caucus demands on H1B policy. The MAGA caucus then allows the vote for a speaker to proceed to a conclusion.<\/p>\n That\u2019s it, really. That\u2019s the post. But I\u2019ll expand a bit on details of the strategy, comment on H1B controversy over the past few days, discuss what the demand might be, and conclude. <\/p>\n Strategy Background<\/strong><\/p>\n The idea of using the Speaker\u2019s election as leverage comes from Chad Pergram, who covers Congress for FOX. He writes in \u201cThe Hitchhiker\u2019s Guide to failing to elect a House speaker quickly<\/a>\u201d (an earlier version appeared in Water Cooler<\/a>)<\/p>\n [T]he speaker\u2019s election on Jan. 3 poses a special challenge. Here\u2019s the bar for Johnson \u2013 or anyone else: The speaker of the House must win an outright majority of all members casting ballots for someone by name. In other words, the person with the most votes does not win.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The head-count:<\/p>\n The House clocks in at 434 members with one vacancy [Gaetz]\u2026. This is the breakdown when the Congress starts: 219 Republicans to 215 Democrats\u2026. But the speaker\u2019s election on Jan. 3 poses a special challenge. Here\u2019s the bar for Johnson \u2013 or anyone else: The speaker of the House must win an outright majority of all members casting ballots for someone by name<\/em>. In other words, the person with the most votes does not win.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This is why it took McCarthy so many ballots to win in January 2023. <\/p>\n So let\u2019s crunch the math for Mike Johnson. If there are 219 Republicans and four voted for someone besides him \u2013 and all Democrats cast ballots for Jeffries, the tally is 215-214. But there\u2019s no speaker. No one attained an outright majority of all members casting ballots for someone by name. The magic number is 218 if all 434 members vote.<\/p>\n By rule, this paralyzes the House[1]. The House absolutely, unequivocally, cannot do anything until it elects a speaker. Period.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Therefore, the Maga Caucus should consist of a minimum of four members. More:<\/p>\n This also means that the House cannot certify the results of the Electoral College, making Trump the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 6.<\/p>\n The failure to elect a speaker compels the House to vote over and over\u2026<\/p>\n And over\u2026 and\u2026 over\u2026<\/p>\n Until it finally taps someone.<\/p>\n McCarthy\u2019s election incinerated 15 ballots over five days two years ago.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Of course, nobody wants that. Which is why the Republican Party should accede to the MAGA Caucus\u2019s demands. In writing, naturally.<\/p>\n I am by no means an expert in Republican politics or factions; I came up as a Democrat. But following the H1B controversy on the Twitter, it struck me forcibly than many MAGA supporters were in fact very well versed in policy, history, and data, and deployed their knowledge effectively against Musk and his tech bros. For example, H1B is not about importing workers who are \u201chighly skilled\u201d (a pervasive, unexamined, and dishonest, tech bro talking point). That\u2019s why, for example, Trump brought Mar-a-Lago waiters into the country under H1B<\/a>. Rather, H1B is about importing workers who are cheap and compliant, because management can hold the threat of visa removal over their heads. That means that other things being equal, management will always prefer H1Bs over citizens (the power imbalance, as idpol types would say).<\/p>\n If MAGA is a party faction whose salient feature is loyalty to Trump, the MAGA caucus strategy just outlined will never be adopted. If MAGA is about policy<\/em>, there is at least a chance. Here, the contrast between Democrats and MAGA is very great. It\u2019s hard to imagine a furious debate over policy taking place among Democrats in public, one with very little deference to leaders shown. It occurs to me that Democrat charges of authoritarian followership and cultishness are, well, projection. It\u2019s also hard for me to imagine any Democrats having the stones to adopt the MAGA caucus strategy. But perhaps MAGA does!<\/p>\n H1B Controversy<\/strong><\/p>\n Axios has a good timeline of the controversy, in \u201cTrump sides with Musk in H-1B fight<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n The MAGA-DOGE skirmishes started last Sunday, with anti-immigration and anti-Indian vitriol against Trump\u2019s pick of venture capitalist Sriram Krishnan<\/a> as his AI advisor.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I missed the Krishnan \u201cvitriol.\u201d Sad to say, but when so many \u201cbody shops\u201d (InfoSys, etc.) are based in India, and important Indian cititzens, it\u2019s easy to see why animus might develop.<\/p>\n It escalated into full conflict Thursday when Musk ally and DOGE co-lead Vivek Ramaswamy took to X to blast American \u201cmediocrity\u201d<\/a> culture. Musk defended Ramaswamy, and the two sides started engaging in an increasingly bitter war of words.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I entered when Vivek posted his screed. Suffice to say that you could have swapped out Vivek\u2019s words and swapped in Hillary\u2019s \u201cdeplorables\u201d speech, and nobody would have noticed. On the bright side, it\u2019s wonderfully clarifying to see that leadership in both<\/em> parties hates the working class.<\/p>\n On Friday afternoon, Musk doubled down, saying MAGA adherents who continued to blast immigration and the tech community were \u201ccontemptible fools<\/a>,\u201d later clarifying he was talking about<\/a> \u201cracists\u201d who would \u201cabsolutely be the downfall of the Republican Party if they are not removed.\u201d<\/p>\n That \u201clater clarifying\u201d is doing a lot of work; it\u2019s almost as if somebody handed Musk the talking point. And then:<\/p>\n Just before midnight Friday, Musk once again defended the H-1B program in vulgar, all-caps terms, saying the program was the key to the success of his (and other big American) companies.<\/p>\n \u201cTake a big step back and F\u2013K YOURSELF in the face.,\u201d Musk wrote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Oh? How exactly? The Axios timeline gives out before a series of engagements between Musk and MAGA, where MAGA beats Musk like a gong on data and policy. This is a very long thread, but gives the flavor:<\/p>\n Before I start, one note: All charts in this thread are for applications that were \u201ccertified\u201d (in other words, approved for entry into the H-1B lottery). I filtered out applications the gov rejected.<\/p>\n All numbers here are therefore for visas employers actually and realistically\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) December 29, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n And:<\/p>\n You can see that salaries are disproportionately weighted toward the lower bands:<\/p>\n 17% are < $75k (blue) In other words, ~75% are jobs paying < $150k. Only 25% are $150k+, and, of those, only 2.5% are\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/tMfTxlSYkx<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) December 29, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n And: <\/p>\n America needs to be a destination for the world\u2019s most elite talent. But the H-1B program isn\u2019t the way to do that.<\/p>\n I\u2019m going to stop posting for now, but let me know if there are any other visualizations that would be helpful.<\/p>\n If you made it this far, thanks for reading!<\/p>\n \u2014 Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) December 29, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n Oh look. Labor arbitrage! To which Musk responds, meek as a lamb:<\/p>\n Easily fixed by raising the minimum salary significantly and adding a yearly cost for maintaining the H1B, making it materially more expensive to hire from overseas than domestically. <\/p>\n I\u2019ve been very clear that the program is broken and needs major reform.<\/p>\n \u2014 Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 29, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n Quite the change in tone, eh? From \u201d F\u2013K YOURSELF in the face\u201d to \u201ceasily fixed\u201d! It\u2019s almost as if Musk got a call, isn\u2019t?<\/p>\n Of course, if H1B were that \u201ceasy to fix,\u201d it would have been fixed along ago. And it\u2019s quite revealing that it took multiple blows to Musk\u2019s head and body over many hours by MAGA with skin in the game who actually understood the data and the policy issues to get whoever in Susie Wiles\u2019s office monitors Musk\u2019s tweets to pick up the phone.<\/p>\n The Demand<\/strong><\/p>\n Based solely on having consumed vast numbers of Tweets on H1Bs, my conclusion is that Musk is wrong to want \u201creform.\u201d The purpose of H1B is, after all, labor arbitrage: cheap, compliant labor. If labor arbitrage is reformed away from H1B, then there\u2019s no reason for it in the first place. If not, it should be abolished entirely. If Elon wants to import brain geniuses instead of waiters for Mar-a-Lago, we have another category for that: O-1 (\u201cO-1 Visa: Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement<\/a>\u201c). <\/p>\n So that is my demand, ill-informed though it may be: Abolish H1B; reform O-1 as needed.<\/p>\n However, get the commitment to meet the demands in writing<\/em>, for three reasons: <\/p>\n First, my takeaway from the controversy is that the H1B supporters \u2014 i.e., DOGE \u2014 are fundamentally dishonest; they held onto their \u201chighly skilled labor\u201d talking point like grim death, even that MAGA was easily able to show it was a lie (Sterling\u2019s thread was the best response, but there were many, many others that were good too). Anything not reduced to writing will be gamed or not delivered on.<\/p>\n Second, it was amusing to see the cuddle puddle<\/a> of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and media service providers \u2014 i.e., DOGE \u2014 acting as enforcers as soon as Elon took the \u201creform\u201d line; they used the same phrases and tactics Democrat enforcers do! (\u201cNow is not the time,\u201d \u201cone team,\u201d \u201ctime to move on\u201d). So, with dishonest party enforcers, yes, get it in writing.<\/p>\n Finally, I\u2019m sick of DOGE just tweeting it out. It\u2019s amazing to see a heated policy argument play out in public, but Elon\u2019s commitments are worth the digits they\u2019re written with. Elon tweeting \u201cReforming H1B is good, actually\u201d and a whole cheering section chanting \u201cThe controversy is over\u201d just doesn\u2019t make it[2]. Get the commitment to meet the demands in writing. <\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Let me close with words from the candidate who, if the Democrats hadn\u2019t stabbed him in the back, might have forestalled Trump:<\/p>\n When Bernie is more MAGA than the tech bros we\u2019ve got a problem. <\/p>\n I realize companies want cheap foreign labor but investing into technical education for Americans is the actual America first policy I\u2019m not sure why this is controversial.pic.twitter.com\/GXhA7oZtor<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Will Donahue (@realwilldonahue) December 27, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center> <\/p>\n I\u2019ve gotta say, quoting the President of College Republicans wasn\u2019t on my Bingo card. But I don\u2019t think quoting Bernie Sanders was on his Bingo Card either.<\/p>\n So far \u2014 Hello, President Romney! \u2014 Republicans have become more like MAGA, not MAGA like Republicans. Perhaps the H1B controversy will show whether this tendency will continue, or stall.<\/p>\n NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n [1] It may be that in extreme situations \u2014 and multiple votes for Speaker are not extreme \u2014 there are ways out. From \u201cHouse Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House<\/a>\u201c: <\/p>\n Under the modern practice, the Speaker is elected by a majority of Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being present.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As Pergram says. More (citations omitted):<\/p>\n In two instances the House agreed to choose and subsequently did choose a Speaker by a plurality of votes but confirmed the choice by majority vote. In 1849 the House had been in session 19 days without being able to elect a Speaker, no candidate having received a majority of the votes cast. The voting was viva voce, each Member responding to the call of the roll by naming the candidate for whom he voted. Finally, after the fifty-ninth ballot, the House adopted a resolution declaring that a Speaker could be elected by a plurality. In 1856 the House again struggled over the election of a Speaker. Ballots numbering 129 had been taken without any candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast. The House then adopted a resolution permitting the election to be decided by a plurality. On both of these occasions, the House ratified the plurality election by a majority vote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So if history is any guide, 129 ballots is the baseline for changing the procedure Pergram describes. Comments from Congressional rules mavens welcome.<\/p>\n [2] Re: President-elect Trump, once a Speaker is chosen, the election is certified, and he takes the oath of office, a happy ending would look like this: \u201cCongratulations, you\u2019re still my agent<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
21% are $75-100k (orange)
22% are $100-125k (pink)
15% are $125-150k (teal)<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n