Getty Images
The post-Sandy disaster relief is long overdue, but the victims and affected areas can take some solace in knowing that help is on the way.
After fierce lobbying by political leaders in states across the Northeast, the House of Representatives on Tuesday night approved a long-awaited $50.7 billion emergency bill to provide help to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
The aid package passed 241 to 180, with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats. The Senate is expected to pass the measure, and President Obama has expressed support for it.
That's certainly good news for communities that are still struggling two months after the storm slammed East coast. But stepping back and looking at the larger political context, yesterday's developments in the House may reverberate for a while.
Note, for example, that while the aid package passed the chamber with relative ease, 179 House Republicans opposed Sandy disaster relief. For a party that's often perceived as callous towards those who need assistance, more concerned with tax breaks for millionaires than anything else, the roll call only reinforces the worst suspicions of today's GOP.
But there's also the so-called "Hastert Rule" to consider. Under this non-binding Republican guideline, House Speaker John Boehner is only supposed to bring bills to the floor that most of his own caucus supports -- measures, in other words, are supposed to enjoy a majority of the majority. The idea is, Republicans shouldn't even consider bills if they're dependent on Democratic votes to pass.
And while this "Hastert Rule" has generally been taken quite seriously in GOP circles, it's suddenly looking rather shaky. Boehner ignored the tenet when passing the bipartisan fiscal agreement two weeks ago, and he ignored it again last night to pass Sandy aid.
It's too soon to know for sure whether these were isolated incidents, which just happened to fall two weeks apart, and the Speaker intends to honor the rule for the rest of the Congress, or whether the "Hastert Rule" has suddenly lost its significance. But if it's the latter, it has the potential to be a game-changer in the 113th Congress.
Remember, the conventional wisdom suggests policymaking over the next two years will be nearly impossible because of the radicalized House Republican caucus. Sensible, popular measures may be able to get a few dozen House GOP votes, but most Republican representatives will always be inclined to kill every meaningful bill.
But if the "Hastert Rule" no longer matters -- or more accurately, if it matters far less than it did last year -- this dramatically affects the prospects of all kinds of bills, including votes on the debt ceiling, gun violence, and immigration.
I don't want to raise hopes too high, but if Boehner is prepared to start governing with a combination of votes from both parties, Congress may be almost functional in 2013 and 2014.
Leave a Comment:
49 Republican votes? You stay classy, GOP.
Note that the overwhelming majority of those 179 votes came from the neo-Confederates, the representatives of that part of the country that doesn't contribute its share to the government, yet always wants help when they have a hurricane or a tornado or flood, or such. Perhaps we should remember that the next time they get hit by anything, and let them live by the Southern Rules as enunciated by their great leader Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, in the Cornerstone Speech:
"The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution."
Just cut them off.
Boehner doesn't want to go down as the least competant Speaker ever - He might even have some actual concern for this country, and the way his right flank has poisoned, well, everything.
Boehner, by breaking the Hastart Rule, gives the TPers cover, so they can protest-vote their little hearts out, and the country can still operate, hopefully. Ok for the short term, but not for the long haul.
And that is exactly how it should be. After all the TP does not represent the views of a MAJORITY of Americans, and they should not be permitted to subject us to their tyranny, especially when they are so narrow, shortsighted and mean-spirited.
If the Hastert 'rule' gets broken more in the future, what (if any) significance does that have for the unity of the Republican Party. If the shrinking center-right segment of the party likes to get things done even if it's with Democrats, and the larger far-right mass keeps on going as it has been, then...what?
If those R members voting for the 2 bills passed so far are voting their conscience and are not designated face-savers for the party, perhaps there is hope. Boehner can choose to be the captain of the Titanic or remind his caucus that his job is to be a public servant, first and foremost. He also can raise his own polling numbers, while his less mature caucus members continue to circle the bowl.
What the weakening of the Hastart Rule means is a group of 40-50 Republican Congressmen from the Northeast and Midwest will control the 113th Congress unless the Tealiban members decide to play ball.
As the LA Times pointed out on January 6, the majority of House Republicans come from the Confederacy, and they are the core of the crazy. The Republicans from outside the Confederacy are the ones who understand reality. (with the exception of loons like Steve King, Bachmann and Ryan)
Surprise surprise, The South is the problem.
I don't hold out much hope for anything sadly.
What was that great quote from the other day:"Forced by the momentum of their ideology."
That ideology doesn't just compel them it washes them along in an irresistible current of political malice and irrational spite.
This is a party that is losing and ready to engage in kamikaze politics just to feed the perpetual anger of their base. At this point these are not deal makers, they are no longer a rational party interested in governance, instead they are committed and determined to oppose the system and break it at any and all costs.
But the "Dole Rule" - you can only support government action on behalf of some region or group if you are directly affected by it - is alive and well. Bob Dole, of course, was one of the few Republicans allowed to show compassion for the disabled.
Maybe it could also be called the "Christie Rule".
I don't suppose Boehner has realized the majority of the majority is completely irrelevant to our collective national concerns, willing to damage our nation to remain ideologically pure, and have no desire to legislate while in their legislative offices, but his willingness to bring to a vote legislation that is supported by a bi-partisan majority for our benefit is how our legislative institution of government should work!
You go Johnny! -Kevo
Has MSNBC done any reporting on this development, or is this all speculation and punditry?
I watched some of debate over amendments yesterday- get a life, DAY!- and was struck by the ignorance/partisanship of the "Fors" and the measured intelligence of the "Against".
For example, an amendment was brought to the floor to strip a paltry one million dollars from NOA, because it did not specifically address ONLY the Sandy disaster. Never mind that weather forecasting is quite useful on a daily basis. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed- even a few Republican ones.
Well that's all that "Science" stuff that's straight from the pit of hell...and you know weathermen are the Devils servants...
Methinks Boehner has had enough of his fellow Republican House members after they fought him on the fiscal cliff and embarrassed him. He does seem like he takes things personally sometimes.
I think the Hastert Rule was really a way of protecting the most conservative members. Now they will have to stand on their own. We'll see if this results in more of them getting "primaried" or lead to a less contentious Congress.
I would LOVE to see the Hastert rule blown up. (Hastert was my rep until he had to quit early, costing the district a couple of million for a special election, to start his consulting firm.)
The rule CREATES one more hurdle for any bi-partisanship.
You could have 100% of the minority party for an issue and 50%-1 of the majority party for the same issue and the Hastert rule would prevent the bill from even being brought up. That means the House is effectively being controlled by 25% of the House members.
Is that really how things should be run?
No, but that is their end game; to ensure government cannot work the way it is intended. If you allow a minority to hold the majority hostage, then nothing can get done. Rendering the federal government ineffective is their ultimate goal.
If the "Hastert Rule" (I always thought of it as the "Gingrich Rule") is breaking down, it will still take filibuster reform in the Senate to make Congress halfway functional.
Will Sen. Reid fold? He has seemed a bit more feisty lately, but the inside whispers haven't been encouraging.
Let's hope that he is seeming soft as a PR ploy. I'm hoping that Reid will announce: "I tried to strike a deal with the Minority Leader, but as usual he wouldn't give an inch. So we're going with the Nuclear Option.
I'm glad people in need are getting help. I think passing the aid was the right thing but let's see if we can evaluate the situation so we do better next time. Here are my points:
1. There were things in the bill that were not for emergency spending or immediate relief.
2. Preventative measures so future storms have less of an impact should be part of a regular budget process, preventative measures by definition are not emergency spending.
3. Congress needs to have better guidelines on how to get aid to people in need so that you don't have money like roof repair for government buildings in Washington that were not affected by the disaster in an emergency relief bill.
Agreed?
Pork being added to bills has been ongoing for as long as I've been alive (nearly 65 years).
Until the houses of Congress get serious about NOT allowing this to happen it will continue.
At the same time ALL politicians know that they are going to want something at some time that can only get passed by using this technique.
So if the REPUBLICANS were truly interested in cutting spending so much, why don't they not allow this to happen?
RobDon: Agreed, but only in a fantasy world where there is mutual respect. The Republicans will simply never allocate funds for prevenitive measures of any kind under any circumstances.
Dogjudge, this is what some Republicans "claimed" they were doing. I say "claimed" because of several reasons. 1. Why now? 2. People are in need. 3. Never know motive, only see action.
You could ask the same thing of Democrats, which is my point (over and over and over again, no one is serious about long term).
Lebowsky, I think the lack of respect exists on both sides. As to "never allocate," we should continiue to make the case to voters, that's the way our system is set up. The sad thing is that it works against us because most politicians are only focused on short term that leads to re-election.
When #2 in your list happens on a regular basis, then we can talk about #1 and #3. Not before.
Without a mitigation plan, you don't know where , how, when or IF people can rebuild. Christie explained this, you should have been paying attention.
Since Sandy was over 1000 miles wide and there's about 350 miles between D.C. and NYC(fewer still from central Jersey) are you certain about that talking point?
Let's face it. The Hassert Rule is just dumb. If governing is supposed to be accomplished by compromise, then getting a majority vote to pass, regardless of that majority's composition, is good governing and most likely better represents what the majority of the country wants; not the majority of one single political party.
If House Republicans were really committed to the Hastert rule they would have thrown Boehner out after he broke it at year end. That vote and his re-election were strong indications that Republicans' threats on the debt ceiling are mostly bluster for the benefit of the extreme base and wingnut donors. They are not going to take responsibility for cutting SS and Medicare anyway - it would lose votes.
Anyway, you need to have faith in Congress's ability to kick the can - it's about they only thing they do.
I'm of a different opinion. I think Boener is under orders to get the GOP's favorability ratings higher. And that means he has to get the things done that need to get done. You can't get good ratings by screwing over people who have lost their homes by a natural disaster. You don't get good ratings by holding the entire country hostage to a 4% tax hike on a couple of thousand (hundred?) people.
The GOP has to take back the Presidency and Senate in 2016. That is the end game. They've already gerrymandered so that they win while losing the popular vote. You can see it in the states that are trying to split electoral votes from their state. The voting restrictions are already starting to show up again.
Two more years of NO from the GOP will not get them added seats in the Senate in 2014. It won't get them the seats back in the House. And it puts them in a poor starting place for the 2016 presidency run. They need an image makeover, a rebranding, as a kinder, more in touch with the little people party.
Yes, even if it's a ruse.
No doubt a very fine fellow and by all accounts, easy to get along with,
Dennis Hastert was a cogressman for twenty years and speaker of the house from
1989 to 2007. He is credited with establishing the rule for Republican speakers
that no bill should be brought forward for a vote unless a majority of the
House Republicans support it. This was a surprising move for the new speaker
because on assuming the role he made the point that each member of the House
was equally important to their overall mission of improving the lives of the
American people. It is less surprising when we are reminded that Newt Gingrich
had, by this time, left the speakership and resigened from the House and his
logical successor, majority whip, Tom Delay, had decided he was too controversial
to assume the position. It was Gingrich who first spoke of the majority of the
majority rule for Republicans and it was Tom Delay who engineered Dennis
Hasterts election as speaker; and it was thought by many that it was Tom Delay
who actually ran the House until his own downfall in the latter nineties.
The current speaker, John Boehner, seems to be doing his best or, depending
on the point of view, his worst, to follow the Hastert rule. He doesn't have a
Newt Gingrich or a Tom Delay with the power to punish him, but he does have
Eric Cantor in the wings and the Tea Party in the audience. It is possible
though that Boehner does in his soul believe in compromise and may wish to
salvage his reputation by appealing to democrats to help him pass crucial
bills. He has been forced by public opinion to bring a few such bills forward.
Maybe, with time, this will become easier. We can only hope.
Obama say--If the country wanted to be run by the Republicans, they
would have voted for them.
It looks to me as if Speaker Boehner may be employing a modification of the "Hastert Rule".
If I understand it correctly, the "Hastert Rule" requires that the Republican caucus not allow any legislation to reach the House floor unless that legislation could pass the House even if only voted for by Republicans. Speaker Boehner seems to be requiring only that a majority of the Republican caucus agree to let the legislation come to the House floor, regardless of whether or not there are enough Republican votes to pass the legislation.
An excellent way to marginalize the Tbaggers, while still allowing them to be their insane RWNJ selves! If it turns out that is what the Speaker is doing, I can live with it.
As for the fears about the gerrymandered districts, there are a few things to remember. One, the political makeup of districts does not remain frozen in amber, demographics have a way of lousing up the best laid plans of even the Koch Bros. Otherwise, why the need for gerrymandering in the first place? Obviously, this doesn't mean we can expect an easy period over the next 8 years, but it does lead to my second point: all those gerrymandered districts aren't 60+% Republican, quite a few were only carried by 55% or less. Concentrate on those in 2014 as well as those districts we only carried by 55% or less. That should give the Once and Future Speaker her gavel back!
Finally, is it me or is blanks, and the rest of the trolls for that matter, even more incoherent than usual? Are they running low on kool aid? Or were the Mayans only referring to the end of the RWNJs' world? Inquiring minds wouldn't mind a bit of enlightenment...