Getty Images
The so-called "Hastert Rule" is terrific for party discipline and partisan rule, but it's awful for democracy and governing. And as of this week, its demise may be near.
As we talked about yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) brought a post-Sandy disaster relief bill to the floor this week, and passed it, despite the strong opposition of his own caucus. Though the aid package passed the chamber with relative ease, nearly 80% of the House GOP -- 179 members -- voted against it. This came just two weeks after Boehner also passed a bipartisan fiscal deal over the objections of most of his fellow House Republicans.
Under the non-binding "Hastert Rule," this isn't supposed to happen -- Boehner is only supposed to bring bills to the floor that most of his own caucus supports (measures that enjoy a "majority of the majority"). The idea is, Republicans shouldn't even consider bills if they're dependent on Democratic votes to pass; the real power belongs in the hands of the House GOP's far-right rank and file. And yet, the Speaker has now ignored the rule twice in two weeks.
Though Boehner aides insist these were isolated incidents, not a new normal, it's generating a very interesting conversation on the right about whether the "Hastert Rule" has outlived its usefulness.
"That rule is completely dead," one Republican aide said. "The Democrats now effectively control the floor because nothing 'big' will come to the floor without knowing in advance that lots of Democrats support it. That gives the Democrats tremendous power in a body where the minority is not designed to have much power."
This strikes me as a little excessive, but House Democrats sure seem to have a spring in their step this week. "I'm not sure they can pass anything without us. I love it," Rep. Louise Slaughter, (D-N.Y.) told Roll Call. "That means we can negotiate for a change."
Even former Hastert aides are ready to see the "Hastert Rule" fade away.
John Feehery, a former spokesperson and leading aide in Hastert's office, published a piece today arguing that Boehner can't stick to the rule if he expects to govern.
I think John Boehner won't have much of a choice in these first several months of the 113th Congress. He has to get stuff done. He had to schedule the vote on the tax vote extension. He had to schedule a vote on Sandy relief if he was going to maintain any credibility for the GOP majority. And he will have to extend the debt limit. [...]
The Speaker doesn't have much room to maneuver. His conference is in no mood to compromise, nor in much of a mood to vote for anything that resembles responsible governance.
But as Speaker of the whole House, he has no choice but to schedule things that keep this country from defaulting on its debts and stay open.
The Hastert rule worked pretty well for Denny Hastert, but for the next couple of years, John Boehner might have to think more like Tip O'Neill if he wants to survive with his reputation intact.
In a move that raised eyebrows this morning, Boehner's deputy chief of staff promoted this Feehery piece on Twitter this morning.
This may seem like inside baseball, but it's extremely important. If Boehner, in the name of getting stuff done, is open to bringing important bills to the floor, and passing them with mostly-Democratic support, the next two years will be far less ridiculous than the last two. It means a debt-ceiling crisis is less likely, comprehensive immigration reform is more likely, and meaningful action on preventing gun violence has a credible chance of success.
In other words, if we are witnessing the demise of the "Hastert Rule," there's reason for cautious optimism about the near future.
Expect this to be a major topic of conversation today at the House Republican retreat.
Leave a Comment:
Well, they had to do something. Their reputation is in the toilet, and another two years of the same All Obstructionist, All the Time schtick wasn't going to bring any improvement. They have to be looking toward the 2014 election and wondering whether any of them would survive if nothing changed.
They'll do just fine. Maybe after another 4 years of screwing the American people the people will finally see what this President has done to this country, and the childrens futures he's spending! He should have apologized to them while he was hiding behind them yesterday!
Jeff. Do facts" ever cross your mind? Look at the spending cuts the President has passed. Look at the reason most of the spending has been done. And the President can't spend a dime without congress, GOP, approving it. So it's Cogress, GOP, spendign, NOT the Presidnet.
Now, Jeff. Didn't I explain to you that you should get your ducks in a row before posting something here? Surely even you must understand that nothing gets approved and spent without going through Congress. Mr. Obama doesn't have a private checkbook that's used for spending your children's future trust money. Go back to Civics 101 or just read the Constitution. It's not that long.
Hey Jeff, thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule of fornicating your sheep to come over here and remind us all of how ignorant ignorance has to be, to be one of you scum.
Jeff, you are delusional. I just hope you toxic teatards keep up the antics to ensure we have a solid DEM majority in 2014. With the help of the toxic teatards, it WILL happen! Can't thank you enough.
So bored with delusional Republican morons.
Jeff, you are truly a republicon. It really sounds as if you have no love for the country you reside in. I'll say a prayer for you. You'll need it.
FINALLY.
Hastert (my ex-rep) was the last in a line of uberpartisan Republicans such as Tom DeLay, etc.
This rule did more to prevent bi-partisanship than any other House rule.
I especially loved this line, " "That rule is completely dead," one Republican aide said. "The Democrats now effectively control the floor because nothing 'big' will come to the floor without knowing in advance that lots of Democrats support it. That gives the Democrats tremendous power in a body where the minority is not designed to have much power."
Someone should mention to this aide the Republicans in the Senate.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. The quotation from "one Republican aide" about the rule's demise should be remarked for this:
"... where the minority is not designed to have much power ...": but in fact, it is the tea party wing of the GOP that has been an overly powerful minority in proportion to both their real popularity in general and to the GOP in particular.
This new arrangement more properly reflects the actual votes of the American people rather than the successfully gerrymandered artificial 'majority' the GOP now holds in the House.
Maybe what we need are 16-20 House Republicans willing to TRULY break ranks and switch their (R)s to (D)s.
Why would they want to switch? So they can be voted out of office?
So, Jeff, what's your point? I'd be interested to hear why you think this.
Ah, Jeff, your willingness to give us multiple examples of how far below an amoeba you are on the evolutionary scale is really appreciated.
To wit, it's also a terrible analysis by the aide himself. Republicans can still bring legislation to the floor and vote on it with the support of half or more of the Republican caucus and no Democratic support at all; if the whole Republican caucus is behind it, it'll still pass without any Democratic votes. The only thing that getting rid of the Hastert Rule means is that John Boehner doesn't have to let legislation that has the votes of more than half of the entire chamber be held hostage by a minority of less than 1/3 of the House.
There are 233 Republicans and 200 Democrats currently in the House. Under the Hastert Rule, 117 members of Congress could hold any piece of legislation hostage and keep it from being brought to the floor—effectively a quasi-filibuster. That's a lot more minority power than what's given to Democrats by getting rid of the rule. Now, if a piece of legislation has 200 Democratic votes and 17 Republican votes, the majority of the House can act to get it passed.
JBH, the whole point of the Hastert Rule was that the House Republicans were jealous of the Senate's filibuster rule.
I think they're tired of capitulating to inferior intellects within their own ranks. And some are appreciating that "compromise" is actually an honorable thing.
Just a guess.
The staffer is wrong. For 200 years one of the most important features of the American congress was it gave many minority members real power especially in committee work. A speaker had to work with the minority leadership as well as his own. Newt Gingrich started this vision of Congress as parliament crap not realizing that taken to its ultimate conclusion it would create utter chaos. Boehner is actually taking the Congress back to a functional model. Good for Boehner. This will give him real control over the Tea Party. They either play ball or he cuts a deal with Pelosi.
This..along with filibuster reform..cannot happen soon enough. Next, bring back earmarks so that reps have an incentive to compromise.
I wish I could be as optimistic as Mr. Benen, but I can't see Bonehead and Cantor ignoring the firestorm of the majority Republican Policy Committee and the Tea Party caucus and allowing anything resembling a "clean" debt ceiling bill to pass without appending poison pill spending cuts. Nothing says that Boehner can't invote the Hastert Rule here and not allow a bill that won't be amended in committee to include social spending cuts.
And this also sideswipes the real issue of whether President Obama won't simply allow the cuts to happen anyway to avoid a default, simply because he and his corporate benefactors want them almost as bad as the GOTP does, if for a slightly different reason.
I can see the President and the Dems trading a rise in the debt ceiling with a "Grand Bargin-lite" proposal mixing the "entitlement" spending cuts put forth in Bowles-Simpson with some modest tax loophole closing; which is then modified by the GOTP House to add more onerous social spending cuts. Then, after grousing about the Repubs threatening to bankrupt the country, Prez O "gives in" on the cuts, saying that he had "no choice".
The Left gets screwed (again); the Center gets what it wanted all along (forced austerity on the middle and poor); and the Right gets to scream and raise money for 2014 and 2016.
I feel this is different, the President has insisted on getting a clean bill and I think he will hold out for one no matter the consequences.
Please recall that once the House passes a bill, poison pills or no, it will go to the Senate -- where the pills may well die. At which point, what? Will the House refuse to take up anything from the conference committee that doesn't have the pills, regardless of whether the votes are there for a clean bill?
Bear in mind that the House radicals are so determined to not pass a debt limit extension that the bill won't pass at all without Democrats in the House -- and they're not likely to vote for one with poison pills.
These votes were Boehner's demonstration of his power to the far right members. He has finally recognized that these fringe radicals need him just as much as he needs them to accomplish things. If the fringe members do not moderate their demands and cooperate with Boehner and the other establishment Republicans, Boehner can move legislation without the votes of the far right. I would suspect that the far right is more worried that Boehner could do this a third time. Don't forget that Boehner has taken out some of the radicals on committees. Boehner can take away their soap box to rant for the benefit of their constituency and make these member irrelevant. The fringe may stamp their feet, scream and yell, but in the end they know that their grip on Congress is slipping. Alone, the faction cannot get any of its agenda moved through the House.
However, I do not think Dems should go too far with bailing Boehner out with votes. Let him squirm some more because he realizes that he is getting the blame for everything that is wrong in the House. His worst fear is that the public opinion will be directed at him alone.
By the way if you are a deeply partisan Democrat, you might not like this development. Boehner has probably saved the Republican party from self destruction.
On the other hand if you are an American first and a Democrat second, you have to say good for Boehner.
The new majority - not Democrat, not Republican -- but people who realize their job is to do what they were elected for -- governing. What a concept! Maybe it will catch on and we'll get something done!
Yea, just like Harry Reid in the senate.
Tea baggers in the House of representatives have to realize that they cannot keep taking hostages in order to try and get their way when it comes to fiscal matters. Coupling the debt ceiling to deficit cuts is not the way to do right by the American people . They are beginning to look like the Titanic after hitting the iceberg, drifting silently into oblivion before she upended began to sink and took many people with her to their watery grave. That is the future of the republican party in Congress. If they are to survive as a party and remain RELEVANT John "Orange Glow" Boehner needs to exert some real leadership and put these Tea Baggers in their place. Because If they do decide to ONCE AGAIN put at risk the U.S. and Global Economy just to score political points with their base back home, while the rest of America suffers the consequences. I believe 2014 will become another WAVE election and the American people will make the republicans in Congress come to regret that decision. And the Republicans in Congress will then become IRRELEVANT.
The Good faith and Credit of the United States is not something to be used as a bargaining chip !..
Congress spends the money... Congress should pay it's bills !... Period !..
So much for the party of "NO".... Can't wait to see what 2014 will bring !...
As of today, John Boehner's days as majority speaker are beginning to look bleak, past the election cycle of 2014...
I hope sincerely hope Nancy Pelosi will hand him a bottle of "Hawaiian Tropic" sun tan lotion in 2014, right before he hands over the gavel once AGAIN to her....
That would be PRICELESS !...
The R's should do like earlier R's did and kick those crazies out. They should not allow such wierdos as that Texas congress person to run as a Republican. Make the crazies start their own party!
Denny Hastert has a some irrational, incompetent House rule named after him? Makes sense to me. Makes you wonder what John Boehner will have named after him.
i thought this thread was related to Dennis Hasbert, the president from 24 and Pedro Cerrano from Major League