House changed a standing rule to ensure control over the shutdown

[stefan]

the change discussed in the video by van hollen and chaffetz occurred in HR 368 which was passed the day of the shutdown.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A

[Glenn]

Saw this last night when a friend posted on FB. I'd say it's shameful, but both parties have done tricks like this. So, not surprised.

This one passed on September 30 by a vote of 228-199 pretty much along party lines (Republicans: 221 For, 9 Against; Democrats: 7 For, 190 Against) and was tied to House Joint resolution 59 which was related to continued appropriations.

[JONBOYLEMON]

I see lots of goons in that video.

When did we go from doing whats best for America, to the abortion we have now?

Feel bad for good people who get into politics, we need them, but they cant stay clean in a cess pool.

[Sombeech]

When did we go from doing whats best for America, to the abortion we have now?

Did somebody say abortion? :roflol:

[Byron]

"Why are the rules rigged to keep the government shut down"? Is that really what 368 did? Because I don't see it...

Seems to me that these are really high level negotiations, and they want to keep it that way...rather than have a bunch of lower level congressmen grandstanding all over the place with time wasting speeches. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would have done the same thing. Keep the big time talks up at the top end. Makes sense to me...it's hardly like they're undercutting political power, they just don't want to listen to a bunch of hacks rambling on. Nothing to see here folks...Once again Stefan, you come up with an empty shell.

Unless of course, you really enjoy watching these guys beat each other up all day long on C-SPAN.

[stefan]

"Why are the rules rigged to keep the government shut down"? Is that really what 368 did? Because I don't see it...

Seems to me that these are really high level negotiations, and they want to keep it that way...rather than have a bunch of lower level congressmen grandstanding all over the place with time wasting speeches. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would have done the same thing. Keep the big time talks up at the top end. Makes sense to me...it's hardly like they're undercutting political power, they just don't want to listen to a bunch of hacks rambling on. Nothing to see here folks...Once again Stefan, you come up with an empty shell.


hardly, byron. my understanding is that this change was significant and very atypical. the move blocked the right of any member of the house to make a motion to vote on the senate's bill that was sent back to the house (which could have passed if it had sufficient D+R support). this rule change applies specifically to the bill sent back from the senate. only the majority leader or his designee can make the motion (and cantor has no intention of doing so). they intentionally made the change to prevent such a vote, ensure the shutdown, and force a compromise by going to conference.

[oldno7]

hardly, byron. my understanding is that this change was significant and very atypical. the move blocked the right of any member of the house to make a motion to vote on the senate's bill that was sent back to the house (which could have passed if it had sufficient D+R support). this rule change applies specifically to the bill sent back from the senate. only the majority leader or his designee can make the motion (and cantor has no intention of doing so). they intentionally made the change to prevent such a vote, ensure the shutdown, and force a compromise by going to conference.

stefan, maybe lets look at it this way--How many laws has the House passed(to end the shutdown) that are sitting on harry reids desk?

may I suggest you look into those 14+ bills and then get back to us on who is being petty.

your king is the epitome of petty....

I know of no administration who has beaten 80+ year old Veteran's of WWII to show who is in charge:angryfire:

[cchoc]

stefan, maybe lets look at it this way--How many laws has the House passed(to end the shutdown) that are sitting on harry reids desk?

may I suggest you look into those 14+ bills and then get back to us on who is being petty.

your king is the epitome of petty....

I know of no administration who has beaten 80+ year old Veteran's of WWII to show who is in charge:angryfire:

You mean how many times has the house passed effectively the same bill to end the shutdown, right? With rule 358 there is no way to find out if the house would pass the bill sent to them by the senate since the speaker won't allow a vote on it.

[oldno7]

You mean how many times has the house passed effectively the same bill to end the shutdown, right? With rule 358 there is no way to find out if the house would pass the bill sent to them by the senate since the speaker won't allow a vote on it.
And what is the way to see if the Senate will pass one of the 14 bills, without harry reid allowing a vote on it?

Do you know where spending legislation comes from?(who controls the budget)

[oldno7]

You mean how many times has the house passed effectively the same bill to end the shutdown, right? .

None of the bill's have been the same.

ALL spending bills MUST originate in the House, Right?

One of the first bills was to delay zerocare for 1 year but the rest of the inflated budget passed.

obama/reid declined this.

The reason being is--the more we the people, learn about the zerocare system, the less likely it is to be popular.

It has always been un popular among conservatives but now that middle and low income democrats are finding out that there premiums are going up an average of 2.5X, it is quickly losing favor, even among the kool-aid kids.

It was reasonable to delay implementation of zerocare for 1 year.

[oldno7]

And the number one thing true conservatives oppose--continued raising of the national debt.

This administrations spending levels are un sustainable!

[cchoc]

Romney ran on a platform of repealing the ACA day one and had his ass handed to him. The house has voted 40 some times to repeal the ACA, and failed. Why not let it be implemented and then deal with it? If it's a disaster then either fix it or repeal it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[cchoc]

And the number one thing true conservatives oppose--continued raising of the national debt.

This administrations spending levels are un sustainable!

Reagan and every pres since except Clinton have increased the debt by overspending. Big news for 'true' conservatives. Reality is that both conservative and liberal ideas have their place in government but neither 'true' believer side will admit it, they label everyone not 100% in lockstep as a member of the other side. Very sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[rockgremlin]

hardly, byron. my understanding is that this change was significant and very atypical. the move blocked the right of any member of the house to make a motion to vote on the senate's bill that was sent back to the house (which could have passed if it had sufficient D+R support). this rule change applies specifically to the bill sent back from the senate. only the majority leader or his designee can make the motion (and cantor has no intention of doing so). they intentionally made the change to prevent such a vote, ensure the shutdown, and force a compromise by going to conference.Kinda scary really. The true enemy to our country lies not without our borders, but within our own government. I believe the term is.....implosion?

[Byron]

(which could have passed if it had sufficient D+R support). It wouldn't have passed...just look at the numbers that supported 368 in the first place.

The leadership did the right thing...they didn't want it batted back and forth ad nauseam. Get the big boys in the room and hash it out, then vote on it. Bam, done.

Too bad the Republicans didn't have the power to pull off a trick like this when Obamacare was (barely) passed in the first place.

[stefan]

It wouldn't have passed...just look at the numbers that supported 368 in the first place.



the change was subtly added to HR 368 and went unnoticed.

[Byron]

implosion?Nah, man... It isn't like Clinton and Gingrich, or Reagan and O'Neil. Back then the deficits and debt were chump change, the bullshit they argued over then would be inconsequential now. The stakes are jacked up sky high, and I commend the Republicans for trying to stem the bleeding.

Here's a book I highly recommend...A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. We're seeing this played out to the Nth degree right now.

[Byron]

the change was subtly added to HR 368 and went unnoticed.Maybe you should write you Democrat Congressman and advise him/her to wake up?

[stefan]

Maybe you should write you Democrat Congressman and advise him/her to wake up?

byron, i know it's all about taking sides with you, but i am merely explaining that this was calculated and it went unnoticed likely by most in the house (which was the intention).

also it appears to be part of the calculation that the senate republicans (cruz, mcconnell, lee, rubio, toomey, paul) refused to go to conference over the budget 19 times since april when it's been requested by senate democrats

as for the votes, it is public knowledge that not all house republicans want the shutdown to continue so the votes might be there.

[Sombeech]

I keep hearing Ted Cruz's name pop up in all of this. I don't follow much, but isn't he a freshman? I thought it was odd that a newcomer had such forceful influence on this whole deal, unless of course he made some comments that went on YouTube and that means he is at the center of this whole controversy.

Then again I don't watch cable news AT ALL.

[Byron]

byron, i know it's all about taking sides with youOh yes Stefan, it certainly is. We have irreconcilable differences...I would imagine that you support Obamacare, I don't. I would like to see it completely destroyed. I can afford to pay for my own policy, just the way I like it, without add ons or taking a subsidy. You, and your Democrat politicians would (figuratively) point a gun to my head and make me pay into it. To that I give the double fisted middle finger salute, and will act with noncompliance in any way that I can. For example, I won't buy off the exchange, even if it would save me a few bucks.

All about taking sides? You bet!

[Scott Card]

Very sly, Stefan... sliding this into the general section and elevating this from Rubbish Bin (political section) material to the general section. Well played! :haha:

[Glenn]

For thems that like data..here's the vote tally on H.R. 368:

Yays - 228 (221-R, 7-D) Nays - 199 (9-R, 190-D)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll505.xml

The text reads:
Resolved,
That the House hereby (1) takes from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59 (http://beta.congress.gov//bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/59/)) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, (2) insists on its amendment, and (3) requests a conference with the Senate thereon.
Sec. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.

http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hres368/BILLS-113hres368rh.pdf

Because this was tied to H.J 59 (aka "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014"), I'm sure most voters were taking that into consideration. No excuse for not reading a single sentence of text that dramatically alters the course of business. But wouldn't have passed even if the seven yay-voting democrats had gone against.

[rockgremlin]

Very sly, Stefan... sliding this into the general section and elevating this from Rubbish Bin (political section) material to the general section. Well played! :haha:

I feel so used...

[oldno7]

the change was subtly added to HR 368 and went unnoticed.

Subtle-you want to talk subtle--how about barry changing a law.

Yes a president does not have power to legislate, so explain how your barry re wrote zerocare as it now sit's.

The law passed by the house and senate and signed into law--IS NOT the law inb it's current form, obamo changed it--ILLEGALLY!!!

[Glenn]

Subtle-you want to talk subtle--how about barry changing a law.

Yes a president does not have power to legislate, so explain how your barry re wrote zerocare as it now sit's.

The law passed by the house and senate and signed into law--IS NOT the law inb it's current form, obamo changed it--ILLEGALLY!!!

There have been at least nineteen changes to the Affordable Healthcare Act - fourteen of which were changed and approved by both Congress and the President. The other five changes were delays in implementation initiated by the President himself. So what are the illegal changes you're speaking about?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/study-obamacare-has-been-amended-delayed-19-times/

[Iceaxe]

http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=69968&stc=1&d=1381410904

[Byron]

So what are the illegal changes you're speaking about?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/07/the-white-house-keeps-changing-obamacare-is-that-legal/

This is a pretty interesting read on this subject...which means it's subject to your opinion, walking a fine line methinks.

In regards to these political threads firing up above the basement...it seems that all the hijinks that have been occurring in Washington have finally resulted in something that bit a lot of us in the ass, hard. Conservatives and liberals alike aren't digging it...and it just goes to show that the Government has way too much power...certainly in regard to the Parks. I can't imagine why we wouldn't all agree on that, at least?

[stefan]

Very sly, Stefan... sliding this into the general section and elevating this from Rubbish Bin (political section) material to the general section. Well played! :haha:

i dunno, scott. i figured playing with the fire of default was of "general discussion" worthiness (since it kinda affects everyone).

i seem to recall a long period of time when republicans were endlessly hammering home a talking point about ... what was it again? something about "uncertainty" in markets threatening the economic recovery?

[Glenn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/07/the-white-house-keeps-changing-obamacare-is-that-legal/

This is a pretty interesting read on this subject...which means it's subject to your opinion, walking a fine line methinks.

In regards to these political threads firing up above the basement...it seems that all the hijinks that have been occurring in Washington have finally resulted in something that bit a lot of us in the ass, hard. Conservatives and liberals alike aren't digging it...and it just goes to show that the Government has way too much power...certainly in regard to the Parks. I can't imagine why we wouldn't all agree on that, at least?

That was a good article. While I couldn't read former judge Michael McConnell's article that the delay to the employer mandate was illegal (Wall St. Journal subscription required), the quote in the article suggests that unless there's "explicit statutory authorization they don't have the right to do it [change the law]".

But, as the article pointed out, delaying implementation of administrative rules is not unprecedented. And a one-year delay in only part of the ACA does not really constitute an overreach of executive authority. Now, if the delays go out a few more years? As the article notes: "That's a greyer area."

The irony to me is that the Republicans could have just sat back, passed a clean appropriations resolution and let the media attention focus on the disaster of the
healthcare.gov website and implementation. That alone should have been delayed at least a year. And I'm personally in favor of some public-mandated healthcare reform.

[Sombeech]

http://forum.darwincentral.org/download/file.php?id=18381&sid=9b3a3e6321268816163d468a8379b5b1&mode=view