Proposed House GOP Rules Give Rep. Ryan ‘Stunning And Unprecedented’ Power To Shape Budget

[ProSense]

Proposed House GOP Rules Give Rep. Ryan ‘Stunning And Unprecedented’ Power To Shape Budget

The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has laid out a series of changes it would like to make to the House rules, including replacing the current “pay-go” rules — which require all spending increases to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases — with a rule called “cut-go,” which requires that new spending programs — but not new tax cuts — be offset with spending cuts. The GOP has also proposed a new rule requiring that each piece of new legislation include a statement justifying the legislation’s constitutionality.

That’s not all, however. As National Journal reported today, “a little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.” Indeed, under the proposed rules, if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the proposed change “stunning and unprecedented“:

This rule change has immediate, far-reaching implications. It means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. (There is no requirement for Representative Ryan to make his proposed spending and revenue limits available to Members or the public before the vote on the new rules.)…Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the (2008) level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of order.

Ryan, of course, has gained notoriety for his radical “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which purports to balance the budget by essentially privatizing both Social Security and Medicare, while the House GOP’s much-ballyhooed “Pledge to America” includes a promise to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the 2008 level. If adopted, an across-the-board cut to 2008 levels would entail severe reductions in important and popular programs like Pell Grants and federal highway funding.

more

Well, the Republicans' intentions could not be more clear.

Krugman: Yes, They’re Frauds

[AtomicKitten]

1. Sounds like there will be rule changes in both houses of Congress. Game on. nt

[KansDem]

2. The Party of Endless War and Endless Profits for the War Machine...

F*ck the American people, there's money to be made!

If ever there was proof that Bush lied us into war for the MIC, this is it...

[Lasher]

3. I don't see how that could be constitutional.

I would hope the SCOTUS would be just as fond of this as they were of the presidential line item veto. But given their right wing bias they just might say it's OK as long as Republicans control the house.

[unblock]

5. not sure why scotus would mess with the house's power to change its own rules.

no matter how idiotic those rules might be....

[Lasher]

8. Are you kidding? Ryan would be ruling the House by decree.

There's little point in having a vote at all if he can unilaterally change it.

[unblock]

11. being able to set limits on spending falls a bit short of ruling by decree

both houses have had plenty of rules and plenty of powerful committee chairs and i'm not aware of any case where the supreme court intervened in either chamber's internal rules.

so while i think the rule is stupid and undemocratic, i don't see how it's unconstitutional.

[Lasher]

14. This is more sinister than pay-go in a bathtub.

From the OP:

...if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order.

Ryan could render a full House vote academic.

[unblock]

16. yeah, sinister, whatever. i don't like or advocate it either. just saying it's not unconstitutional

the house would still get to vote on the appropriation bills themselves, and there are procedures to override the budget levels set in the budget resolution.

the entire budget resolution is effectively just a chamber's internal control for action the appropriations bills. the scotus is simply not going to mess with a house vote to establish a house rule to grant certain specific authority to a member chosen by house vote to set levels under certain conditions that are then potentially used to trigger other house votes or actions regarding the consideration of appropriates bills.

[Lasher]

17. You might be right.

Maybe not. We shall see.

[golfguru]

19. Whoever said "elections have consequences"

might have been right on target.

[flpoljunkie]

4. MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell discussing Issa's promise to investigate, but zip on these unprecendented

rules changes. Our media at work--or rather, not at work! She's speaking with someone from Politico who, of course, has not covered this extraordinary story.

[flpoljunkie]

12. NYT did write an editorial yesterday: Deficit Hypocrisy

December 29, 2010
Deficit Hypocrisy

It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end Bush-era income tax cuts and — as a little bonus — won deep estate tax cuts for America’s wealthiest heirs. Those cuts will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term, while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money had been spent more wisely.

That should have been evidence enough that the Republican Party’s one real priority is tax cuts — despite all the talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here’s some more:

On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays, House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.

First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending, which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress annually.)

The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.

It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-spending increases be offset by spending cuts only — and actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such spending.

more...

Deficit Hypocrisy

[Hawkeye-X]

6. We need to hyponitze the whole lot of the Repulicans

and tell them to turn Democratic so we can re-take the House and use their abusive rules and turn it against them.

At least 50 Republicans are said to be highly suggestible (remember, republicans uses nothing but lizard brain)

So let's get busy!

[Hawkeye-X]

7. Should be declared completely unconstitutional, and making the rules

I hope the Democrats will continue to object that the rules are not germane.

The Democrats will need to do some serious ass-kicking. And it's time to take back the media as well. Hack the WORLD!

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Article I, Section 5:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Lasher]

18. That last sentence is interesting. It looks like the House could block recess appointments.

Maybe the House could refuse consent for the Senate to adjourn for more than 3 days, which is what it takes for Presidential recess appointments to occur. Then Senate Republicans could continue to filibuster Obama's nominees. Does that seem a possibility?

[karynnj]

9. This really is an attempt to give the House far more than its share of Congress' power.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Yes, it is an outrageous and unprecedented power grab by the Republican House.

[Lasher]

15. We had the Unitary Executive while Republicans controlled the Presidency.

Now we'll have funding by decree in the House.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. I'm more thankful than ever that we held on to the Senate

The Republicans are going to have to be forced to the table because they're going to have to go through both Harry Reid's Senate and President Obama to get anything actually signed into law. There's no way that President Obama and/or Harry Reid are going to let all this just sail through.

[golfguru]

21. You mean like the tax bill just passed?

You are OK with $700 Billion tax break for the top 2% earners?

[RBInMaine]

24. And just how was the bill you wanted going to pass? Did you see it fail? Do you live on Earth?

[golfguru]

25. I am sorry, I thought we still are the majority in congress until Jan 5th

Oh, but wait just a minute, we have a lot of blue dogs and Dino's and
other assorted congress critters...forgot about them.

[Lasher]

22. Hahahahahaha!

Good one!

[RBInMaine]

23. Doesn't mean shit. Obama will veto nonsense, and the PUKES can't overturn.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. The Preamble itself has the perfect justification for a lot: "...promote the general welfare"

No, that doesn't mean "welfare" as in payouts, it means well-being and conducive circumstances for the people. The reactionaries who selectively read the Constitution need to have their noses rubbed in the mission statement of the government, which is the preamble of the document.

Personally, I hope they live up to their threat to hold hearings on global warming...

[That Guy 888]

27. What, if anything will the Democratic party do?

I imagine most of our party "leaders" will whine about how unfair it is and capitulate some more.

[Monk06]

28. "new legislation include a statement justifying the legislation’s constitutionality."

You can always count on the teabagger lumpen proles
fucking up their own program.

With the 'constitutionality' provision they have opened
up every new piece of legislation to a Supreme Court
challenge. Well at least the SC will be busy testing
the teabaggers' understanding of the constitution.

Let the games begin

[tomm2thumbs]

29. the first steps in putting Ryan on the GOP ticket the fall begins, just wait

he's their little lap dog and they want him in the White House