There’s a lot of discussion in the blogosphere of the shutdown, John Boehner, and the “Hastert Rule”, the idea that a speaker is imprudent to bring something to the floor for which a majority of his caucus won’t vote. I honestly don’t know where to put the quotation marks on that phrase—on “Hastert” (since it’s not unique to Denny Hastert), on “Rule” since it’s just a rule of thumb, or on the whole shebang.
I have a question. There are lots of people who want John Boehner to fall on his sword. Why should he? If you’re arguing that it’s for the good of the country, there are a lot of things that would be good for the country. Many Republicans, for example, think that delaying the “individual mandate” in the PPACA would be good for the country. Most Democrats disagree. In other words, there’s a difference of opinion about what’s good for the country and you don’t need to introduce imputations of malicious intent into the discussion at all. There’s a difference of opinion. Is John Boehner the only person in the country who has an obligation to sacrifice or compromise?
If you wonder why I don’t come back immediately in some discussions, one of the reasons is that I don’t feel comfortable defending Republicans even implicitly and when I don’t feel comfortable doing something I tend not to do it. I don’t have a consuming interest in Republicans. My Alderman is a Democrat, my state senator is a Democrat, my state representative is a Democrat, my Congressional representative is a Democrat, the mayor of the city in which I live is a Democrat, the Chicago City Council consists entirely of Democrats. All of those are likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. The governor of Illinois is a Democrat and there’s a slim chance that might change. In other words, Republicans have practically no relevance to my daily life.
I’m ambivalent about the budget showdown, and don’t really care what they do at this point. But to answer the question, I think Boehner is using the “Hastert” “Rule” (which Hastert is denying exists today) as a negotiating restraint to obtain concessions for his caucus. The tactic is only as good as it is credible, so casual waiver of the “Rule” has long-term consequences. The story that Boehner risks his job seems a bit exaggerated, and may be part of Republican posturing on the rule’s credibility.
Boehner can be expected to waive the “Rule” if he is given something the Republicans want that they couldn’t get otherwise. The Democrats complain that this is tantamount to negotiating with hostages, which they cannot do, and they seek to draw their own red lines as a negotiating restraint. Again, credibility and posturing are front and center.
The alternative to get Boehner to waive the “Rule” is to inflict consequences and there are few available at present. The most dire would be loss of control of the House, but the numbers are not there. This is partly due to the number of safe districts, but also because Republicans are expected to do better in an off year election with lower turnouts. For example, there were four districts carved out in Illinois that were crucial for Democrat control of the House, and the Ds took three of them. All four of these districts are toss-ups again, and its certainly possible that the Ds make take the fourth district this year. But the Ds will have to hold the other three districts in a low-turnout election against credible Republican challengers who are not in the House and will run against Washington.
The other consequence would be loss of the opportunity to control the Senate, which means, how is this playing in West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisiana, Alaska, Montana and North Carolina? Sean Trende’s analysis is that the President is probably getting blamed most for the shutdown in all, but the last state, at least for now. So, I really don’t see much immediate incentive for the House to capitulate, and Democrats probably feel the same.
In other words, there’s a difference of opinion about what’s good for the country and you don’t need to introduce imputations of malicious intent into the discussion at all. There’s a difference of opinion.
Exactly! What’s going on, not only in various branches of government, but in the country as well, is a passionate difference of opinion, fueled by one’s POV and/or basic ideology. I find if you can keep this is mind when discussing these differences, the conversation not only maintains a sense of civility, clarity, but also seems more valid and productive. However, when one side or the other digresses, recklessly throwing ‘names’ around, negative labels, insinuations, then a useless food fight ensues, animosity poisons the dialogue leaving no oxygen for consideration of any workable compromise. It becomes a matter of ‘winning’ everything, over ‘doing’ something.
IMO the D’s and their party members are engaging in this name-calling behavior more frequently, ardently and with greater hyperbole attached than the opposition party. And, such political bullying may end up back-firing. Also, the government shut-down, much like the opening shots surrounding the sequestration, has been full of venom, pettiness and appearances of savoring hand-picked closings of public venues to make vivid painful points rather than electing sense or sensitivity in these selections. The most televised one has been the WWII Veteran’s Memorial in DC. Another minor one has been the Claude Moore Memorial Farm, a privately funded theater, that just happens to be located on federal land (???)
Nonetheless, symbolic closings seems to be a big goal here, very much like the WH tours being eliminated for school groups and out-of-town visitors, in order to have people viscerally feel the ramifications of sequestration, using those feelings to then insidiously cast blame onto the other party. What I think it really demonstrates, though, is a kind of selfish, ruthless vindictiveness, rather than the application of common sense or decency found in a more tempered, less polarized leadership. These are the times where one would hope honest attempts would rule the day to cushion, not intensify, the effects of DC’s political arguments, holding public welfare ahead of party posturing optics. That’s definitely not happening in today’s budgetary or debt ceiling gambits!
“We’re not going to be disrespected,†Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) told the Washington Examiner. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.â€
Right, I can’t imagine why people think the GOP is full of it. Don’t they know that there is a national mandate giving conservatives exemption from having reasonable judgment passed on them?
That’s sort of what I’m getting at. What I’ve been hearing from the Blue side of the aisle is “give it to us because it’s what we want”. IMO we should order Dale Carnegie courses all around.
jan:
Sadly, the view that the only possible grounds for disagreement are stupidity or malice is pretty much in control.
“Sadly, the view that the only possible grounds for disagreement are stupidity or malice is pretty much in control.”
Yes, in the minds of the conservatives. They’ve created an apocalyptic version of Obamacare that has no basis in reality and now expect everyone else to deal with it now that it’s ruined them as if it’s a real belief. Plenty of other people have real disagreements with the ACA–they are not being heard from right now.
The history of government shutdowns is pretty interesting – it used to be a pretty common way to provide leverage.
As far as the so called “Hastert Rule” goes, the majority controls the agenda in both houses. It’s always been that way and the GoP leadership isn’t doing anything unique here. The difference is that factionalism is a lot worse than it used to be.
Incidentally, Jan’s comment is pretty much what every liberal expects from most conservatives now. Say the other side is prone to name-calling and pettiness. Then accuse the other side of savoring what happens when the government closes the WW2 memorial.
Have you ever read Paul Krugman’s column?
Krugman basically calls the GOP New-Deal hating radicals. He takes their opinions very seriously, compares them to the facts, and tries to figure out where the insane confidence comes from, since the chasm between opinion and fact is so wide.
But I guess he’s mean in columns to public figures, so it’s just like total indifference and deceit about the uninsured or climate change. Like it’s one thing if poor people don’t get health coverage, but it’s another to call the Reagan Revolution a total fraud.
“Jihadists, Blackmailers, Hostage Takers, Terrorists, Anarchists, Legislative Arsonists, Racists” are just a few choice nouns used by members of the Democratic elite, pundits and some in the liberal MSM in labeling Republicans. Now, Modula, give me your list of how republicans label their colleagues and members at large in the opposing party. Blog comments, tweets don’t count, as they most often reflect the fringe reaction of a single commenter, not people speaking on the public stage representing their party of choice in some kind of professional/authoritative capacity.
As for pettiness, I’m just looking at the remarks and conversation dominating the current news cycle. President Obama is not reassuring the public by engaging in fear mongering and worse case scenarios regarding warnings directed at Wall Street, promptly slumping the DOW, and now throwing out threats of SS checks being in jeopardy and/or the dire possibilities of imminent US default.
The reality is that President Obama has used his power of the presidency, mightily, by unilaterally imposing his will on legislation. He’s done it on welfare reform, immigration, green energy subsidies, sequestration implementation, enlarging the EPA stranglehold over businesses, and many times in the evolution of the PPACA, which is now suddenly and adamantly off the table for any further negotiation. He’s currently doing it with his selection of closures, under the guise of adhering to fiscal demands created by the government shut-down, which he wholeheartedly blames on his political nemeses.
However, should this shut down be extended for any lengthy time, or the debt ceiling not be raised, revenues will still be flowing into the coffers of the treasury. If his intention is to do no harm, or as little harm as possible, then he has not only the presidential capability but also the means to pragmatically prioritize our debt obligations, as well as the most important services, programs, and checks so as to keep the government and it’s people limping along for a while. He also has the podium and a very willing media to vocally broadcast his message, ameliorating, rather than provoking, citizens’ concerns about the future — pointing to a light at the end of the tunnel, in trying to get through these problems, rather than dramatically speaking of the abyss that’s right around the corner.
“Now, Modula, give me your list of how republicans label their colleagues and members at large in the opposing party.”
I dunno if he’s got a list. But would Newt Gingrich’s list satisfy you?
Hmmm. Golly, I guess this is one area where both sides really do do the same thing. Who’d a thunk it? (Well, anybody paying attention.)
I see sam has to go back to the Paleozoic era……..
But anyway. I’m glad Jan brought it up; I thought Dave might. Anyone who understands executive leadership knows you don’t engage in the talking down the economy or markets Obama did yesterday. He’s the President, not a bar room brawler, Harry Reed’s imaginary friend with supposed Romney tax info or Play With Myself. Even grizzled Washington vets were aghast.
And speaking of the Paleozoic era………Rachel Maddow, the Princess of MSNBC, ran a, ahem, “report” the other night about how it was a bunch of Tea Party legislators who have all along wanted to “shut down the government.” The master plan. Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Then she played a clip of a legislator talking about it as evidence. Setting aside that the remark was (who’s surprised??) taken out of context…………….the legislator?? Joe Walsh.
See, Joe Walsh is now a radio talk show host in Chicago. He had a good time calling her out for her sterling evidence. That’s all you got, woman?? Ah, yes, honesty.
Gee. It took 30 seconds and Google to find quotes from talk radio hosts, your equivalent of pundit, calling Democrats fascists, communists, traitors, America haters and faggots. Another 30 seconds and you can find actual Congressmen calling Democrats communists and Marxists. Then, my favorite, only Republicans are Real Americans.
Steve
Steve,
I hate to break it to you, but talk radio hosts are entertainers. They aren’t professional journalists nor members of congress, let alone POTUS. Big difference!
Totally off topic: but what a beautiful woman Miriam Carey was –the woman shot and killed in DC today. Why did this happen?
jan: the PPACA, which is now suddenly and adamantly off the table for any further negotiation
That’s not the issue. The Congress can debate the PPACA all they want. The House has already voted to repeal it forty-some times. The question is whether it is appropriate to hold the rest of the government hostage to a dispute over the PPACA.
jan: However, should this shut down be extended for any lengthy time, or the debt ceiling not be raised, revenues will still be flowing into the coffers of the treasury.
The government shut-down will cost lots of money, lost opportunities, and in the event of a long term shut-down, recession. Not raising the debt ceiling will be seen as a credit default of the United States, and could devastate the global economy. It’s uncharted territory.
This youtube video was made a while age, but is starting to have a comeback, now that we are experiencing the actual implementation of Obamacare —Obamacare in one longggg sentence!
Humor sometimes is an elixir for frustrating, insane moments you can’t do anything about.
“That’s not the issue. The Congress can debate the PPACA all they want. The House has already voted to repeal it forty-some times. The question is whether it is appropriate to hold the rest of the government hostage to a dispute over the PPACA. “
That may not be the issue for you and your ideological companions. But, for others, negotiation is very much at the crux of the problems in DC. Many people feel that, as the House is tasked with the government purse strings, it should be able to freely and independently question the President’s wishes, offering appropriate amendments to rectify fiscal flaws involving implementation and/or inherent unfairness in the POTUS’s legislation. That is not holding the government hostage. It’s doing the job representatives hired on to and are being charged with — acting as the economic oversight for government’s expenditures — appropriately giving the House the right to have sway over the funding mechanics of a given bill.
The repeal angles, I agree, don’t work as a bargaining tool in these budgetary discussions. However, I think mirroring the delay Obama granted to big business, giving a year’s reprieve to individuals too, is appropriate. Also, eliminating subsidies to Congress’s own HC, and offing the medical device tax would have enormous public good will behind it, as well as not sacrifice any further job losses to outsourcing.
The House’s battle might be construed as playing with politics, when it reality, what they are doing is playing with monetary numbers.
You know, I just checked Covered California, our state’s Obamacare. I now pay $2100 for our family through our corporation.
It appears I can save $600 a month. For a better plan. With lower deductibles. And I can’t be dumped off the plan on some bullshit pretext.
That’s $7200 a year in premium savings and thousands more in deductible and more security.
So tell me again how this is a disaster?
jan: Many people feel that, as the House is tasked with the government purse strings, it should be able to freely and independently question the President’s wishes, offering appropriate amendments to rectify fiscal flaws involving implementation and/or inherent unfairness in the POTUS’s legislation.
Sure they can. But they’re not “questioning the President’s wishes”. They’re withholding fund to the entire government to subvert existing law. They’ve even suggested sending the U.S. into default! If they want to defund Obamacare, they should pass a separate bill for that purpose. But it won’t pass.
Is it an appropriate use of power for the President to threaten to default on the nation’s debts in order to strong-arm the Congress into passing gun control legislation?
Zachriel,
No it’s not an appropriate use of power for any branch of government to threaten fiscal chaos onto the country, which default might do.
From what I’ve seen, though, republicans in congress are reassuring the nation that there will be no default, including referencing a bill, introduced earlier in the year by Tom McClintock — supported by the R’s and rejected by the D’s — putting such an assertion into legislative language.
Boehner, also has come out publicly saying there will be no default, which some say is why the Obama administration continues to hold the line on participating in any negotiations, convinced the republicans will fold in order to prevent a default scenario. And, such a shrewd, calculating assessment, of the opposing party’s bottom line, seems to have just added more concrete to the democratic adamancy, of myopically considering nothing but a clean CR to get around the DC conundrum. It has also contributed, IMO, to the endless destructive ‘default’ references churning away in speeches/interviews from the president and dem party members, disingenuously using default threats as an emotional tool to scare and destabilize people into compliance. These fear-pain-panic tactics are clearly illustrated by American treasured, open venues, many which are privately funded or state-run, being insensitively selected to take the hit for the federal government shutdown.
Basically, when viewed from the outside looking in, this is why the shutdown seems more politically/strategically orchestrated than pragmatically managed and sensibly prioritized to minimize, not maximize, damage and heartache to the people, as the R’s and D’s play their games with each other in DC.