Abuse of Power
When I saw this yesterday I wasn't really sure what I was reading. When I see it again today, on several news sites ... I was very concerned. But it seems, I shouldn't have been.
Nancy Pelosi, some time around 3 PM yesterday, was trying to rewrite House rules to allow Congress to increase taxes without having to vote. Why yes, you read that correct. She was going to change a 185-year old House rule in order to accomplish this. The reason for this being, the minority kept filing for "motions to recommitt," which essentially kills a bill by taking it off the house floor and puts it back in Committee, with or without instructions on what the committee needs to do to fix it so it can be voted on. Or not, if there are no instructions, the bill is sent back and I guess, has to be rewritten before it can be brought forward? Or a completely new bill written?
Anyway, I guess this was getting embarrassing for the majority. The Republicans had successfully done this 11 times, and within striking distance of a 12th on a budget bill.
Nancy (and presumably others) didn't like this, because it meant the hidden jewels (amendments) in some of her baby bills weren't getting through. There were 11 bills that the Rebublicans successfully had recommitted (right lingo? I don't know), one of them being a pet of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (this was in March) who said at the time that he would change the rules if he had to.
So the majority decided they would try and amend the Germaneness rules (and forgive me here, my degree nor field of study has ever been law or parliamentary procedure) so that bills could be passed without their amendments having to be Germane. Germane meaning (the link takes you to Congresses definition), the amendments don't need to go with the bill. Match I guess. They were going to attach this to a new budget resolution, effectively giving the minority no way to debate or change the amendment, and giving the amendment and easy trip through the house. This would have been a tax-as-you-go bill, which is why the press is reading this as "Nancy Pelosi to alter rules to raise taxes."
As is always true of the press, there's more to the story than just that. First of all, it sounds like it's more Hoyer than Pelosi, and it may have been a bad joke gone ary that Boehner took seriously. 12 quorum calls for procedural votes were issued after the "gossip" leaked that the Majority was thinking of a rules change like this. And then the leadership met and discussed that no rules change would be made within the next two weeks.
Somehow, that doesn't make me feel better.
Articles:
House members call temporary truce on procedural battle
Breaking News from the House
Dems bend rules, break pledge
House GOP forces 12 votes
For the record, I did look around at HuffPo and others to see if there was any news on this. There wasn't. I can't find an opinion anywhere on a major (CNN - no, Fox - no, ABC - no), though I'm sure an editorial from WSJ is being written as we speak. At least, I hope it is. If a major rules change (almost) happens and no one reports ...
To be fair, I don't think the average American knows or cares about parliamentary procedure, germaneness, or motions to recommit. As it stood I had to give myself a quick tutorial via google. I love, love, love the internet. Anything you ever want to know is at your finger tips.
And Neal Boortz has a great little snippet about gas prices and how there are more important things that something that's going to cost you $2.00 more a week.
Nancy Pelosi, some time around 3 PM yesterday, was trying to rewrite House rules to allow Congress to increase taxes without having to vote. Why yes, you read that correct. She was going to change a 185-year old House rule in order to accomplish this. The reason for this being, the minority kept filing for "motions to recommitt," which essentially kills a bill by taking it off the house floor and puts it back in Committee, with or without instructions on what the committee needs to do to fix it so it can be voted on. Or not, if there are no instructions, the bill is sent back and I guess, has to be rewritten before it can be brought forward? Or a completely new bill written?
Anyway, I guess this was getting embarrassing for the majority. The Republicans had successfully done this 11 times, and within striking distance of a 12th on a budget bill.
Nancy (and presumably others) didn't like this, because it meant the hidden jewels (amendments) in some of her baby bills weren't getting through. There were 11 bills that the Rebublicans successfully had recommitted (right lingo? I don't know), one of them being a pet of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (this was in March) who said at the time that he would change the rules if he had to.
So the majority decided they would try and amend the Germaneness rules (and forgive me here, my degree nor field of study has ever been law or parliamentary procedure) so that bills could be passed without their amendments having to be Germane. Germane meaning (the link takes you to Congresses definition), the amendments don't need to go with the bill. Match I guess. They were going to attach this to a new budget resolution, effectively giving the minority no way to debate or change the amendment, and giving the amendment and easy trip through the house. This would have been a tax-as-you-go bill, which is why the press is reading this as "Nancy Pelosi to alter rules to raise taxes."
As is always true of the press, there's more to the story than just that. First of all, it sounds like it's more Hoyer than Pelosi, and it may have been a bad joke gone ary that Boehner took seriously. 12 quorum calls for procedural votes were issued after the "gossip" leaked that the Majority was thinking of a rules change like this. And then the leadership met and discussed that no rules change would be made within the next two weeks.
Somehow, that doesn't make me feel better.
Articles:
House members call temporary truce on procedural battle
Breaking News from the House
Dems bend rules, break pledge
House GOP forces 12 votes
For the record, I did look around at HuffPo and others to see if there was any news on this. There wasn't. I can't find an opinion anywhere on a major (CNN - no, Fox - no, ABC - no), though I'm sure an editorial from WSJ is being written as we speak. At least, I hope it is. If a major rules change (almost) happens and no one reports ...
To be fair, I don't think the average American knows or cares about parliamentary procedure, germaneness, or motions to recommit. As it stood I had to give myself a quick tutorial via google. I love, love, love the internet. Anything you ever want to know is at your finger tips.
And Neal Boortz has a great little snippet about gas prices and how there are more important things that something that's going to cost you $2.00 more a week.
Comments