The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Math Is Flawless

Posted on | March 16, 2010 | 14 Comments

by Smitty (h/t Hot Air)

Ornstein at AeI:

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.”

I had wondered how the Republicans had managed to conquer 1/6*35*100 = 583% of the economy.

The way the media highlighted the abuse really helped cue all of those protests back in those awful days of the 109th Congress.

Category: Politics

Comments

14 Responses to “The Math Is Flawless”

  1. nicholas
    March 17th, 2010 @ 6:14 am

    Feigned outrage?

    “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.”

    Hey Ornstein, there is nothing feigned about it. You are comparing the Republican use of the procedure for a 40 billion dollar deficit reduction package, with the Democrat use for a multi-trillion dollar, nation changing, freedom shackling monstrosity. That’s like one guy complaing about the costs of a parking ticket, and the other guy complaining about the costs of the NASA space program.

    “Is there no shame?”

    Please. And wipe that goofy grin off your face. ‘Is there no shame’!

  2. nicholas
    March 17th, 2010 @ 1:14 am

    Feigned outrage?

    “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.”

    Hey Ornstein, there is nothing feigned about it. You are comparing the Republican use of the procedure for a 40 billion dollar deficit reduction package, with the Democrat use for a multi-trillion dollar, nation changing, freedom shackling monstrosity. That’s like one guy complaing about the costs of a parking ticket, and the other guy complaining about the costs of the NASA space program.

    “Is there no shame?”

    Please. And wipe that goofy grin off your face. ‘Is there no shame’!

  3. Jeff
    March 17th, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

    the previous use of this sort of rule was different in one key point. The language of the rule matched the language of the Senate bill and what the President signed. They voted on a rule with the same language as the Senate bill.
    In this case the rule they will vote on does not pass the Senate bill. It creates a trigger to “deem it passed” when the Recon bill is passed.
    So neither the vote for the rule or the recon bill in the House will contain the same language as the Senate bill.
    They will not have cast a single vote for either the rule or the recon bill that has the same language as the Senate bill.

  4. Jeff
    March 17th, 2010 @ 11:46 am

    the previous use of this sort of rule was different in one key point. The language of the rule matched the language of the Senate bill and what the President signed. They voted on a rule with the same language as the Senate bill.
    In this case the rule they will vote on does not pass the Senate bill. It creates a trigger to “deem it passed” when the Recon bill is passed.
    So neither the vote for the rule or the recon bill in the House will contain the same language as the Senate bill.
    They will not have cast a single vote for either the rule or the recon bill that has the same language as the Senate bill.

  5. Stinky
    March 17th, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

    Tony Blankley (sp?) points out in the Washington Times that Republicans did use it . . . FOR RESOLUTIONS that affected only internal Congressional affairs, not bills that affect the nation. For example, a resolution praising Martin Luther King. A resolution recognizing that the sky is blue.

  6. Stinky
    March 17th, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

    Tony Blankley (sp?) points out in the Washington Times that Republicans did use it . . . FOR RESOLUTIONS that affected only internal Congressional affairs, not bills that affect the nation. For example, a resolution praising Martin Luther King. A resolution recognizing that the sky is blue.

  7. Stinky
    March 17th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

    OK, here’s the link and an excerpt:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2010/03/17/constitutional_law_101?page=full&comments=true

    “Some have argued that the “Gephardt Rule” (House Rule XXVII) — in which a similar “self-executing rule” “deemed” the House to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent. Wrong. That rule was for a joint resolution — not a bill. A joint resolution is a guide to the House. It is not a bill under the Constitution and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill.”

  8. Stinky
    March 17th, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

    OK, here’s the link and an excerpt:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2010/03/17/constitutional_law_101?page=full&comments=true

    “Some have argued that the “Gephardt Rule” (House Rule XXVII) — in which a similar “self-executing rule” “deemed” the House to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent. Wrong. That rule was for a joint resolution — not a bill. A joint resolution is a guide to the House. It is not a bill under the Constitution and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill.”

  9. Blake
    March 17th, 2010 @ 6:34 pm

    You’re seeing astroturf produced talking points.

    Rhandi Rhoads used this same talking point.

    Media Matters has put for the same talking point:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201003160040

  10. Blake
    March 17th, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

    You’re seeing astroturf produced talking points.

    Rhandi Rhoads used this same talking point.

    Media Matters has put for the same talking point:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201003160040

  11. Live Free Or Die
    March 17th, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

    From the title of the post, I thought this would be about O-bah-muhh’s “…your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3000%…” flawless math.

  12. Live Free Or Die
    March 17th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

    From the title of the post, I thought this would be about O-bah-muhh’s “…your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3000%…” flawless math.

  13. Adobe Walls
    March 17th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

    I had never heard of this method of hiding the fingerprints on legislation while I believe it’s clearly unconstitutional the bolshe’s basic defense is that everbody does it. After this will they do it anymore? There could be some very interesting unintended consequences. As a side note has anyone here ever used the everyone does it excuse with any success?

  14. Adobe Walls
    March 17th, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

    I had never heard of this method of hiding the fingerprints on legislation while I believe it’s clearly unconstitutional the bolshe’s basic defense is that everbody does it. After this will they do it anymore? There could be some very interesting unintended consequences. As a side note has anyone here ever used the everyone does it excuse with any success?