Getty Images
House Speaker John Boehner (R) and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
I've kept a close eye on the non-binding "Hastert Rule" because as best as I can tell, its fate will help dictate what gets done in Congress between now and 2015. And at this point, it seems the only certainty is that nothing is certain.
To briefly recap, the "Hastert Rule" is terrific for party discipline and partisan rule -- it tells Republican Speakers to only bring bills to the floor that most of their 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.
In early January, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) decided to ignore the "rule" to pass a bipartisan agreement resolving the "fiscal cliff." At the time, Boehner said it was an unusual situation and he wouldn't make a habit of it. Two weeks later, however, the Speaker did it again on Sandy disaster relief, and again he said these were unique circumstances.
And last week, Boehner did it again to pass the Violence Against Women Act, raising questions anew.
Speaker John A. Boehner sought to assure his conference on Tuesday that the "Hastert rule" is still regular practice, on the heels of breaking it for the third time this Congress. [...]
At a closed-door conference meeting Tuesday, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia asked Boehner whether he planned to keep bringing forward bills that split the GOP conference. Boehner told reporters after the meeting that the VAWA vote was an outlier and said he would like to abide by the Hastert rule.
The Speaker specifically explained yesterday that sidestepping the "rule" is "not a practice that I would expect to continue long term."
Perhaps not, but Boehner's expectations notwithstanding, he's said this before.
I realize this probably seems like the ultimate in inside baseball -- discussing a non-binding, informal rule about which bills Republican House Speakers bring to the floor isn't exactly the sexiest of topics -- but it actually matters.
Ramesh Ponnuru, a prominent conservative writer, noted last week:
If most House Republicans feel strong pressure to pass a bill on some topic, but 20 or so Republicans refuse to vote for relatively conservative versions of those bills, then we will end up with more liberal policy outcomes. Those Republicans will, however, end up with voting records that more closely reflect their views of what public policy would be in an ideal world. And the Hastert rule will routinely be violated because it's unworkable.
Also note, John Feehery, a former spokesperson and leading aide in Hastert's office, also published a piece recently 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.
As we've discussed, if Boehner, in the name of getting stuff done, is open to bringing important bills to the floor, and passing legislation even when most of his own members disapprove, the next two years will be far less ridiculous than the last two. If we've seen the last of the exceptions, and the integrity of the "Hastert Rule" will now be restored, very little, if any, meaningful legislation will pass over the next 21 months.
Leave a Comment:
We have a democratic society to run here, and we don't need a rule for an old wrestling coach to get in our way!
Are you listening Boehner? -Kevo
And I'd add that this past election saw a Dem president elected, a majority of Dem senators elected and, even with more GOP congressmen elected, more votes cast for Dems in the House. The Dems won, for heaven's sake. However, we have Republicans effectively controlling the current legislative process. How is that possible?
In the Senate, filibuster is keeping even majority votes from winning. And through the Hastert Rule, the Speaker won't bring Democrat bills to a vote, so they "die in committee." With this congressional deadlock, Republicans have found a way to lose and still be in control. Aaaaargh!!!
I realize that gerrymandered districts have ensured that these recalcitrant Republicans have no worries about their very cushy jobs. But please, all you MaddowBlog readers, spread the word about how this cunning ploy is destroying the country for everyone but the 1%. And even they aren't going to like it when they have no more factory workers to employ or customers for their wares or reasons for their investment vehicles to be funded.
This is a path with dire consequences. Only by getting the truth out will we have a chance to turn it around.
JL in Montana: I'm wondering if in 2010 when Republicans swept the gavel out of Nancy Pelosi's hands and Republican Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts -- MASSACHUSETTS, and not only Massachusetts but as a replacement for Teddy Kennedy as the 41st vote against Obamacare -- did you similarly encourage your fellow Democrats to drop the healthcare legislation and concede to the Republican agenda?
Are you guys aware of an old-fashioned "Mr Smith goes to Washington" type talking filibuster? Rand Paul is filibustering Brennan over killing American citizens in America with a drone.
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
UFO, sorry to burst your bubble, but only the House went Republican at that time, remember? It was still a majority of Democrats in the Senate, with a Democrat President. And they didn't win anything by filibuster or keeping unwanted legislation in committee. It was voted on and approved. Logic is obviously not your strong suit.
UFO: You are shining a Klieg light on the fact that the clowns you support won huge in 2010, and are running like mice in all directions right now. Go ahead, be proud, wear that nine percent approval rating, own it...
UFO
Scott Brown was widely defeated when he faced a candidate that actually ran a campaign. The GOP majority in the House is crumbling away. My guess is that the 2014 election will see that majority crumble away more or even disappear. BTW do you call yourself UFO Pilot because you're from outer space?
I don't mind shining a light on Dems or Republicans. Legislation by fellow Texan Louie Gohmert that ties funds for Pres. Obama's golf outings to availability of tours at the White House is petty grandstanding and hardly the way legislation ought to be fashioned.
My point was in response to JL who complained that Republicans still seemed to have some power in the political process. Shouldn't it be clear that since Democrats still control the Presidency and the Senate and MADE GAINS in the House that the Dems won, for heaven's sake. So even though Republicans still control the House, why should they have power? Didn't they get the message?
Scott Brown did indeed run for Senate on a promise to be that 41st vote to stop further consideration of the health care bills, which had thus far only passed as two separate bills, one in the House and one in the Senate. By saying he was the 41st vote, I am acknowledging that the Republicans were still in the minority (sorry to burst your bubble, JL) but that Republicans were given the power to block the bills. Popular sentiment (as determined by polling firms) was against the proposed health care reforms, yet the Democrats took no message from Scott Brown's election nor from public opposition to drop the bills. Instead, they used political maneuvers to avoid having the Senate revisit the bills except through reconciliation on amendments to the Senate bill -- which had been a whole-bill substitute to an unrelated bill originating in the House in order to pass a legal hurdle.
Later in the year the issue was still at the forefront when Dems had their hats handed to them in the November 2010 elections. The message should have been clear. It is no mystery why Obama cited the 100+ years previous progressives had been unable to pass a "universal health care" bill. The majority of people don't want it. But JL wants us to take a message only from the 2012 election.
Maria, Massachusetts is Massachusetts. They were not likely to keep a Republican in Washington DC when the reason he was elected was no longer an issue. And if I AM from outer space, it would only be a testament to my superior technological culture and my prominent place as a traveling representative of that culture, wouldn't it?
Clearly, you've missed the point, UFO. Despite these facts:
Republicans are controlling the agenda. You still don't see anything wrong with this picture?
And your rebuttal that the Democrats passed the ACA has nothing to do with my point that Republicans' tactics are (a) filibuster and (b) suppression of votes. The ACA was voted upon. It passed the vote. Way different.
As I said, logic is not your strong suit.
Go back to Area 51, space boy.
I'm sick of this garbage. You people are there to vote on ALL bills put forth not just the ones that fit into your agenda. You work for US not the other way around. Now GET TO WORK!!! We ARE watching!
Good. Boehner is supposed to be Speaker of the House of Representatives, not Speaker of the Republicans within the House. Majority rule? Anyone remember that?
So let me get this straight. I'm not a poli-sci whiz. I understand that it's the prerogative of the Speaker whether or not to bring a bill before the House for a vote. And if something is proposed by the President and passed by the Senate (presuming it isn't blocked by filibuster), then the House can effectively prevent it from becoming law by simply tabling the bill? So if we have divided government like this, it's conceivable that absolutely nothing will be done???
I can see the Speaker having oversight of legislation's readiness for consideration. No sense in bringing a half-baked idea to the floor. But the extremes we've seen under Boehner's leadership have served to bring all output of Congress to a halt. How can that be?
See what you missed sawing logs in the back of the room in Civics 101, JL? :-)
Every time Boehner allows a vote the crazies don't want, he takes a hit from talk radio. There is no way he can constantly withstand that. Just imagine the thrashing TanMan will get if he allows any gun or immigration votes. This should give the Senate Democrats incentive to keep sending tough choices to the House. The fillibuster is the TanMans best friend, it keeps him from having to risk his Speakership...
To the extent that "The Hastert rule worked pretty well for Denny Hastert," it's worth looking at legislation that was actually passed, right?
For example, is there any remotely viable path by which Medicare Part D could be passed in the current congress under the Hastert rule?
Can we enroll all of these republican morons into Governing 101? Never mind they would just use the books for butt wipe in ther outhouses.
Good comment Sheila, hope you don't mind me using them when I call his office.
John Feehery suggests the only way Boehner can keep his rep intact is to lead like Tip O'Neill not Hastert, I'd laugh if it didn't pain me. I think his reputation as a smarmy, lying sack of you know what is assured.
One more thought, if Boehner thought the radicals would cut him a little slack when he refused to negotiate to change the sequester, he is dumb as a box of rocks. They got a victory (so far), heady indeed, which will make them less likely to budge. Those zealots would just as soon see their widowed Mothers lose their Medicare and not lift a finger as vote for anything that promotes the common good.
Why does anyone assume that Boehner wants to govern? Has any recent repub shown any inclination to value governing over their dogma about government being the problem and drowning it in a bathtub? The last repub leader who cared about governing was Eisenhower or possibly Ford. There is no reason at all to think that Boehner gives two hoots about the well-being of the lower 90% of the country.
Well with all this what Jesus said about rich bastards and the Pharisees, you can surely admit he was right. You allow yourself to be fooled and lied to by rich bastards the whole world becomes a mess and for what is now the middle class and poor will suffer as the rich get richer. You have rich bastards pay off some hacks for politics and the news media; you can start spinning whatever load of crap you want. Yea surely the news media and politicians are really suffering over all of this with their big fat paychecks. But little do they know when you have rich bastards that really don’t care about anybody, except themselves, it will be the news media, the politicians, and any of their other hacks in the end out of the picture too. And if you think Communism is an answer, it is not either, since those leaders in the end don’t care about you either, especially when they can just as well easily put a bullet in your head to make big money off of transplants. After all profit is profit even if you have to murder some people falsely to get that money. And a Communist government that will take you off into a backfield to kill you, if you dare talk about a workers union. Plus no concern on how you will be polluting the environment either and what is sick people from toxic waste when people are so easily disposable. Now you can use the excuse that China is no longer Communist, but when you leave the same type of leaders in power, you still just have the same type of load of crap there.
I am still trying to figure out how the Hastert Rule is even legal and constitutional. The House of Representatives are supposed to represent all of us. How then can they say they are doing that if they disregard the people more than 1/2 of us voted for which makes up almost 1/2 of the House?
That's why it's an "informal" rule, and can be broken. It is and always has been the perogative of the Speaker of the House and the Majority leader of the Senate to decide what even comes up for a vote. If no vote is scheduled or taken, then you are talking about "hypothetical" votes, or what congressmen might support what bill or amendment.
The Hastert Rule says the majority of the majority--less than 30% of the total, which is a long ways from passing something on a party-line basis. His alternative is to "whip" his own caucus into voting for something they don't like, by threatening to withhold RNC funds or support a primary challenger or take away their committee assignments or whatever. He failed to get the votes for his "Plan B" in December, so "whipping" is not his strong suit.
In practical terms, when Boehner ignores the Hastert rule, what he is really doing is allowing 60 or 70% of his caucus to take a "principled stand" against whatever. And the Dems cover for them by voting in a practical matter which keeps the government running, provides relief to disaster victims, etc.
It is not a formal rule. It is up to the Speaker to bring a bill up for vote and if he chooses not to nothing can be done about it.
If Boehner starts being Speaker of the [whole] House of Representatives he'll find the institution will work. He might actually be good at his job if he starts doing it. The Majority leader is the one who needs to worry about the Tea Party wing of the Republicans.