Democrats have used self-executing rule over a hundred times

[Modbert]

Nah, I'm screwing with you USMB, it was the Republicans.

The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

On the American Enterprise Institute blog, for instance, congressional expert Norm Ornstein writes:

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."

That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration.

He also posted that essay on the Web site of the Woodrow Wilson Center, where he runs the Congress Project:

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). [Naturally, Gingrich can now be seen everywhere on cable television complaining about such mischief.] There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

Wolfensberger was inspired by a 2006 episode when the Republican majority -- in order to secure their own loophole-ridden, watered-down version of ethics and lobbying reform -- used not just one but three self-executing rules on a single bill.

So uh, conservatives, where has your outrage been for the last, oh I dunno, fifteen years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

 

[Modbert]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

No, it's not ok. It wasn't OK when R's did it and it's really not OK for Dems to use it to shred the Constitution

 

[LuckyDan]

Nah, I'm screwing with you USMB, it was the Republicans.

The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

On the American Enterprise Institute blog, for instance, congressional expert Norm Ornstein writes:

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."

So uh, conservatives, where has your outrage been for the last, oh I dunno, fifteen years?

And I can't recall a piece of legislation nearly as great, as far-reaching, or as costly as the monstrosity now before us.

So uh, Dog, where is the precedent for anything like this to be found in, oh I dunno, our FUCKING HISTORY!?

 

[Modbert]

And I can't recall a piece of legislation nearly as great, as far-reaching, or as costly as the monstrosity now before us.

So uh, Dog, where is the precedent for anything like this to be found in, oh I dunno, our FUCKING HISTORY!?

Did you notice anywhere in my comments on the story that I defended the Dems doing this?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?


Edit: I don't want them doing it. The Republicans were wrong for doing it, as are the Dems. However, republicans need to stop acting like their shit don't stink. Because once the GOP gets back in power, they'll go right back to doing it and people like you will go quiet again.

 

[LuckyDan]

And I can't recall a piece of legislation nearly as great, as far-reaching, or as costly as the monstrosity now before us.

So uh, Dog, where is the precedent for anything like this to be found in, oh I dunno, our FUCKING HISTORY!?

Did you notice anywhere in my comments on the story that I defended the Dems doing this?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?


Edit: I don't want them doing it. The Republicans were wrong for doing it, as are the Dems. However, republicans need to stop acting like their shit don't stink. Because once the GOP gets back in power, they'll go right back to doing it and people like you will go quiet again.

I don't really give a shit if it's been done before or not. It should not be done NOW, with 1/6 of the economy at stake and a clear and very vocal majority of the populace squarely against it.

This is not a piece of business-as-usual legislation where getting cute with the rules should even be considered, let alone defended with all this the lame-ass "the republians did it too" crap.

 

[potter 58]

wah wah wah, karma can be a bitch sometimes

 

[Yurt]

Nah, I'm screwing with you USMB, it was the Republicans.

The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

On the American Enterprise Institute blog, for instance, congressional expert Norm Ornstein writes:

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."

So uh, conservatives, where has your outrage been for the last, oh I dunno, fifteen years?

And I can't recall a piece of legislation nearly as great, as far-reaching, or as costly as the monstrosity now before us.

So uh, Dog, where is the precedent for anything like this to be found in, oh I dunno, our FUCKING HISTORY!?

exactly....it is the scope of the use that is outrageous...while i don't agree with the procedure, scotus has ruled it in other circumstances to be constitutional, however, the facts of this circumstance could be unconstitutional as it has never been done on such a far reaching bill that is 1/6th of our economy....

what is further pathetic is how chickenshit the dems are to put their name on this bill

 

[rightwinger]

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."

You have to understand the nuances..

When Republicans use it, they do it out of PATRIOTISM
When Democrats use it, they do it out of SOCIALISM

Its all about the labels

 

[Oldandtired]

And I can't recall a piece of legislation nearly as great, as far-reaching, or as costly as the monstrosity now before us.

So uh, Dog, where is the precedent for anything like this to be found in, oh I dunno, our FUCKING HISTORY!?

Did you notice anywhere in my comments on the story that I defended the Dems doing this?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?


Edit: I don't want them doing it. The Republicans were wrong for doing it, as are the Dems. However, republicans need to stop acting like their shit don't stink. Because once the GOP gets back in power, they'll go right back to doing it and people like you will go quiet again.

I don't really give a shit if it's been done before or not. It should not be done NOW, with 1/6 of the economy at stake and a clear and very vocal majority of the populace squarely against it.

This is not a piece of business-as-usual legislation where getting cute with the rules should even be considered, let alone defended with all this the lame-ass "the republians did it too" crap.

Quite simple summary...

If they truly believed it was OK to use it, why didnt they simply use it?

Why are they using it as a threat and not just use it?

Or do they realize it is inapproipriate to use it in a situation of this magnitude?

If that is the case, then why are they threatening to use it?

 

[Zona]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

No, it's not ok. It wasn't OK when R's did it and it's really not OK for Dems to use it to shred the Constitution

I see this type thing all the time. The funny thing is, I never heard a republican complain when the republicans did things....only when the dems do it.

That is the definition of a hypocrite.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

No, it's not ok. It wasn't OK when R's did it and it's really not OK for Dems to use it to shred the Constitution

I see this type thing all the time. The funny thing is, I never heard a republican complain when the republicans did things....only when the dems do it.

That is the definition of a hypocrite.

You know what? I'll plead ignorance here. I had no idea anybody ever did such outrageous stuff! It's WRONG! Period!

It was wrong when R's did it and I think had they tried to use this to partially privitize Social Security I might have learned about it then.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it was commonly used in the past, why call it the Slaughter Solution? Dems should have called it the Gingrich Solution

 

[American Horse]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

Searching for the most important instances of the useage of self-executing rules in SUBSTANTIVE bills by Republican controlled Congresses I found these during the time frame they were in charge. Rate them in comparison to the present instance it is being used for yourself:


On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute made in order as original text.

H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its constitutionality.

A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with bipartisan support.

On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their employees an early-out retirement program.

On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that a manager’s amendment dealing with mmigration issues shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for purposes of amendment.

So self-executing rules have been used in the past.
But would any of those examples strike a fair-minded observer as precedent for using a self-executing rule to pass Obamacare?

The bottom line is, Republicans are on solid ground when they say Democrats are considering an unprecedented maneuver to pass their health care bill.

Do Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer believe voters won't figure out who voted for Obamacare and who didn't?

Do they think that anyone won't get the message?

Washington Examiner March 15, 2010

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So wait, have Republicans ever actually used it to pass an entire bill?

 

[California Girl]

Obama, Biden, Reid, and Clinton all had hissy fits and called the process of 50 + 1 unconstitutional. Obama himself said it was against the principle so the founders. He said that he would not use any underhand tactic such as reconciliation to pass healthcare. Further, he said that any POTUS who had to resort to these methods to pass healthcare had lost his Presidential Authority. On the day that anyone on the left can explain to me how, just a couple of years ago, it was the mark of a desperate President and now is perfectly acceptable, I will listen to that explanation.

In the meantime, I will continue to call Obama and his band of cronies for what they are.... corrupt, power hungry, bastards who don't give a shit about 'We, the People'. This 'healthcare' bill is not going to fix the problems in healthcare and anyone with half a brain knows that.

 

[American Horse]

We really should show Dog some appreciation. He consistently shows us what shit the Ds are throwing up against the wall to see what will stick. We channel through Dog, and that saves us all a lot of work filtering Liberal blogs and punditry for their talking points.

Thanks Dog!

 

[MikeHoncho]

show me one piece of legislation that was passed by not being passed in the house and senate.

do you libs understand the difference?

your examples are not the same as the libs trying to deem something passed without actually voting on it.

if this healthcare bill was passed outright in the house and in the senate, the repubs would have no arguement.

 

[rdean]

Republicans didn't use "reconciliation" either, not once. Except on the 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut and their drug bill which was a "gift" to the drug companies. Little things really. Hardly worthy of notice.