Michael Wolraich's picture

    Boehner's Terrible, Horrible, No Good Very Bad New Year

    By Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:06pm | Politics

    John Boehner has a situation. A week ago, he failed to reach a deal with President Barack Obama to avert the dreaded Fiscal Cliff. To save face, he then attempted to pass his own compromise bill, which he called Plan B, ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Democrats were not party to the one-sided "compromise." As it turned out, the Republicans weren't party to it either. When Boehner's conservative colleagues refused to vote for Plan B, he had to humbly retract his evidently no-sided compromise.

    To save face for his failure to save face, Boehner then tried to pretend that the whole Cliff situation was not his responsibility anyway. If the Senate wanted to avoid the Cliff, he insisted the day after Christmas, it should pass a bill and send it to the House for consideration. "The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass," he promised, "but the Senate first must act."

    Perhaps he didn't expect the senators to take him up on it, but take him up they did, cutting short their vacations and returning to Washington with many loud grumbles. Against expectations, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice-President Joe Biden cut a New Year's Eve deal, and the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 89-8 at 2 a.m. on January 1st.

    Now that the Senate has demonstrated that compromise is still possible in 2013, Mr. Boehner's situation has become stickier than ever. His attempt to pass off responsibility for avoiding the Cliff backfired, and now he is stuck with all the responsibility. We are officially tumbling down the Cliff, and John Boehner is the only person in the America with the authority to pull the country back up to the ledge.

    It would not be difficult to do...in theory. All Boehner has to do is allow the House to vote on the Senate bill. Between Republicans and Democrats, there are enough votes to pass it. But there's a catch...

    Since the 1990s, House Speakers have followed the so-called Hastert Rule, a.k.a. the Majority of the Majority. The rule only permits votes on bills that have majority support within the majority party. The Senate compromise bill does not appear to have the support of most House Republicans, which means that Boehner would violate the Hastert Rule if he allowed a vote on it. The rule is really just a convention, and Boehner can violate it if he chooses, but if he does, the Republicans will mostly like vote him out of office.

    Alternatively, Boehner can try to amend the bill to win over a majority of Republicans. If it passed, the bill would go back to the Senate. The Democratic senators might not accept the changes, but at least Boehner would be able to share the burden of responsibility with them.

    Unfortunately for Boehner, it will be hard for the House to pass even an amended bill. Consider: there are 242 Republicans in the House. To satisfy the Hastert Rule, at least 121 of them must vote for the bill. But if Boehner amends the Senate bill to appease conservative Republicans, he will almost certainly lose the Democrats. To pass the bill without them, he will need 218 Republicans. But as the Plan B disaster demonstrated, he does not have 218 Republican votes for anything that remotely resembles a compromise.

    Which leaves him quite deep in the doo-doo. He has two unpleasant options: 1) defy the Hastert Rule (perhaps after he has been reelected Speaker) and take the flack, or 2) wait for his Republican colleagues to cave.

    Meanwhile, the country goes bumpety-bump down the cliff face, ass-first into the new year.

    Late update: It appears that Boehner has decided to ignore the Hastert rule. A vote on the unamended bill has been scheduled for tonight. It will likely pass with a minority of Republican votes.

    Later update: It passed, 257-167. Only 85 Republicans voted for it. Credit to Boehner for breaking the Hastert rule to do it. I wonder if he will pay a price. Eric Cantor voted against the bill. The next Speaker?

    Michael Wolraich is the author of Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Excellent analysis.

    The Hastert Rule is part of our gridlock, far beyond the current situation. The majority of the majority is a minority. In the 112th Congress, as you say, it's 121 out of 235. Starting Thursday, it will be only 117. So you're talking about fewer than 28% of House Members (fewer than 27% by Thursday) being able to block legislation from coming to the floor. That's even worse than the Senate with it's filibuster-by-default. Even a supermajority isn't enough. It's easier to block routine legislation than it is to block an amendment to the Constitution.

    The idea that 50%+1 of 50%+1 are entitled to block legislation and dictate terms explains a lot of the Congressional Tea Party's intransigence.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:19pm

    Thanks. That's an interesting point, and you're right that the conservatives have exploited the Hastert rule to enhance their power. That said, there's a key difference between the Senate filibuster rule and House Hastert rule. One is a tool of the minority party, the other of a faction within the majority party. The latter really only comes into play in the case of a disagreement between the Speaker and his caucus. By its nature, such disagreements are rare; the Speaker would lose his seat if he consistently defied the majority of his party. In other words, the Hastert rule reduces the Speaker's autonomy in exceptional situations, such as the current dispute, but it does not regularly interfere with the basic legislative processes the way the filibuster does.

    Another difference: the filibuster theoretically encourages compromise by forcing the majority to deal with the minority. By contrast, the Hastert rule discourages compromise but blocking the majority leader from cutting deals with the minority party.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:40pm

    Granted. But the Hastert rule is still dysfunctional. If we had 220 Democrats, and 111 liberal Democrats felt entitled to veto Pelosi, that would still be a problem. And if that were the case with a Republican Senate and President, it would be dysfunctional.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:54pm

    I was using majority and minority abstractly, not referring to Democrats and Republicans. My point is the impact of the Hastert rule is much more limited than the filibuster. It basically codifies what the Speaker has to do anyway--the will of his/her caucus. And it's not set in stone, as we see in the events tonight.

    Fwiw, there has been a long and interesting evolution in the power of the Speaker. In the 19th century, the House was truly dysfunctional because of a filibuster-like tactic called the disappearing quorum. Minority reps used to refuse to answer the roll call for bills they didn't like. If too many congressmen were "absent," the vote could not proceed.

    In the 1890s, Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed instituted a set of parliamentary rules that finally stopped the practice. But in the process, he gained so much power that he could personally dictate House business. They call him "Czar Speaker." His successor, Joe Cannon, exploited these rules even further to kibosh progressive legislation in the early 1900s--just like the Tea Party folks are doing today except that it was basically one guy doing what he pleased. When a Republican insurgency finally ousted him in 1910, they change the rules to limit the Speaker's power.

    So there's a tradeoff between the power of the caucus and the power of the Speaker, either of which can be used for obstruction. But I agree that in this case, the Hastert rule overly restricts the Speaker's autonomy.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 9:43pm

    Yes, I know you were using minority/majority in the abstract. It's an important distinction, but although it's different from the filibuster in important ways it's still a legislative veto point in a system that's getting overloaded with them.

    I recall that Theodore Roosevelt loathed Joe Cannon, but the procedural background is interesting.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 1:14am

    Loathe is too strong a word. Everyone liked "Uncle Joe." He was funny, salty, and self-deprecating. Roosevelt cooperated closely with Cannon for most of his presidency. But in his second term, the relationship became more tempestuous. Roosevelt pushed a more ambitious domestic agenda, and Cannon asserted his authority more tyrannically by packing the committees with conservative lackeys and refusing to allow progressive bills to come to a vote, even when they commanded majority support.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 12:26pm

    Update: Boehner ignores the Hastert rule. House to vote on the unamended bill tonight.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:45pm

    THEY PASSED IT!

    Imagine that!

    MORE DEMS THAN REPUBS!

     

    THE PREZ WILL SIGN TOMORROW!

     

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cliff-news_n_2393443.html#liveblog

     


    by Richard Day on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 10:57pm

    It should help calm the markets. I guess that's a good thing right?


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 11:08pm

    Yup! Nancy and Stenny are good at counting votes. Now I have to buy more popcorn for the next few months. It does look like Cantor don't have the influence over all the Republican majority. Next big event Fillibuster reform.

    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 11:26pm

    Two thirds of Republicans voted against it. I'd say Cantor's got more influence than Boehner at this point. Don't choke on that popcorn.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 11:58pm

    LOL...I won't...LOL.

    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 12:37am

    Is anyone else just sick of this?  I read an essay by Ralph Nader today http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/01-1. One thing I have never understood or respected about him is that, with all his good ideas he seems to feel that any office other than President is beneath him.  He could have done such good in the Senate or as a Governor. That said....if you just read his historical account....

    ...I couldn't agree more   If you look back at any historical account, we are headed down the same haughty route as all the others. 


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 9:26pm

    If I were Boehner I would walk in constant pirouettes just to make sure that Cantor is never able to be behind me for more than a second or two.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 11:30am

    Breitbart: Sources: Enough Republicans Willing to Unseat Speaker Boehner

    The source is AMA, which has been lobbying for Boehner to go, so take that with a grain of salt.

     


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 1:44pm

    How easy or hard is it to recall the speaker and replace him during his elected term? I bet Cantor would like to let Boehner win the Speaker-ship again and hold the job through the next couple “crisis”, the resolutions of which will leave a lot of pissed off people on all sides, and then pull a coup and replace him.  


    by LULU (not verified) on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 3:10pm

    Basically impossible. If he doesn't move tomorrow, he'll have to wait two years.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 3:25pm

    My bet is that he's made his move, Michael. If he wants the job, I think it's his. God save us all.


    by acanuck on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 3:47pm

    OK, Boehner's been re-elected, 220 to 192 over Pelosi, with 3 votes for Cantor, and a handful for favorite sons. The fact he got only three means Cantor didn't mount a serious challenge. Perhaps even he realizes the last thing his party needs is another divisive public battle that leaves the House floor soaked with Republican blood. As it was, it took a second vote for Boehner to hit 50%.


    by acanuck on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 3:13pm

    Also interesting...

     

    Wednesday morning on the House floor, New York Republican Reps. Peter King and Michael Grimm blamed Boehner for what they described as a betrayal.
     
    “It was entirely the speaker’s decision,” said a GOP leadership aide, who doesn’t work in Boehner’s office. “As to why we’re not voting on it now? That’s a question I can’t answer.”
     
    A Boehner aide told TPM on Wednesday that the speaker intends to prioritize the Sandy relief package when the new Congress convenes Thursday, and has shared that with members of the New York and New Jersey delegation.
     
    “The speaker will make the supplemental his first priority in the new Congress,” the aide said.
     
    At a press conference in New York, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters Wednesday that he’s “distraught” and “angry” over the House’s failure to hold a vote, blaming it on a House GOP “leadership squabble.” He said Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has been “truly helpful” in piecing together the package and blamed Boehner.
     
    “Cantor has been very much for us, but Speaker Boehner … pulled the rug out from under us,” Schumer said. “It’s a Boehner betrayal.”
     
    A Cantor aide affirmed that the majority leader has been pushing for the package.
     
    “Majority Leader Cantor is committed to ensuring the urgent needs of New York and New Jersey residents are met, and he has been working tirelessly toward that goal,” the aide told TPM.

    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 1:45pm

    OK, now it begins to make sense. Cantor declared war on Boehner by opposing his fiscal-cliff vote, and the speaker retaliated by deep-sixing the Sandy relief package the majority leader had been "tirelessly working toward."

    The optics were going to be terrible either way. Boehner puts all his credibility on the line, and fails to muster a majority of his own party. Then Cantor makes an impassioned call for bipartisan support of hurricane victims, and gets a virtually unanimous yes vote.

    Instead, despite having to carry his balls to the podium in a Ziploc bag, Boehner shows his ex-colleague that, as long as he's still standing (which may not be for long), he too knows how and where to insert the shiv. "It's only a flesh wound!"


    by acanuck on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 3:42pm

    Maybe in the end he decided it was better to not be speaker of the house than go down in history as the leader of the whackjobs that took the country over the cliff

    by Anonymous trope (not verified) on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 6:08pm

    Is there not a provision to force a bill onto the floor? I recall that, during the McCain/Feingold debate, Tom Delay stated that the campaign finance bill would only reach the floor over his dead body. It got there, and I believe it was through a measure to force it out for a vote. It could have been only within the GOP caucus, but I thought that it was at large membership signing a petition to force the bill to the floor.

     


    by The Decider on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 7:47pm

    Latest Comments