Deem then Dump, the ‘Slaughter Rule’
16 March 2010 2:23 pm by Taylor Marsh
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
I hate to be a skunk at Speaker Pelosi’s health care party, but the Democratic House push to pass the current Senate bill is not going over very well. They’re losing the message war. So, Robert Gibbs can protest about a “legislative process game,” as he did not long ago in his press briefing, but he should remember that this “game” is being offered by Democrats this time, which they didn’t like when it was used by Republicans. Additionally, Ezra Klein completely misses the nut of it. There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about “deem and pass,” but that doesn’t mean Democrats are winning the messaging on this subject, which is how a party sinks or swims. But, evidently, everyone thinks this is all about Obama, with nothing else mattering. I think there are more important issues at stake, like jeopardizing real health care reform on the altar of faux reform for the sake of getting a “win.”
Steve Benen, who writes that David Dreier didn’t have trouble using the self-executing rule when he was part of the majority, doesn’t go on to explain in the link he cites that a former staff director of the House Rules Committee doesn’t think what either party does in this regard is good policy.
From Karen Tumulty’s piece on the self-executing rule:
Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party’s bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.
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.). 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.
On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”
[...] The special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted. Moreover, appropriators were unhappy with the earmark provisions included in the bill. This forced Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) to pull the rule after 20 minutes of debate, followed by a five-hour recess and Republican Conference meeting before the House reconvened and the rule again was called up and narrowly adopted, 216-207.
The perils of forsaking bipartisanship and deliberation on such an important institutional issue forced the majority leadership to resort to procedural politics in hyper-drive. Even then their souped-up procedural machine nearly blew its engine. It may be time to reinvent the Model T, with the “T” standing for the tried and true “tradition” of deliberative lawmaking.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was on with Andrea Mitchell also whining about people making this all about a legislative process game, to quote Gibbs. She’s on very shaky ground.
The problem for Democrats is that what Speaker Pelosi is doing for Pres. Obama is not something the majority of Americans want.
If Democrats were going to all lengths to pass a bill that was popular and in line with what the public wanted this would be closer to a moral imperative to do it for We the People. However, the majority of Americans want a public option, which Democrats are not championing. Democrats are also not championing a Medicare buy-in, which is also popular with the people.
What Democrats are doing is going to extreme legislative process games to deem, then dump an unpopular bill on We the People, because Speaker Pelosi can’t get the votes to pass the current bill in the House.
Since I’m one of those people who wants real health care reform, which includes a public option and no Stupak language, it’s unimpressive to watch the current Democratic gamesmanship, which will not do what’s needed to bring real reform.
That Democrats have been caught and can’t explain what they’re doing in any way that passes the smell test is just the latest embarrassment for the stubborn leadership of the Democratic elite who refuse to follow the people, who showed the way a long time ago.
The only use the Elected Elites have for “We the People” and a “moral imperative” are as campaign props and pieces. It’s a bipartisan thing. I had hoped the Insider Elite View had become so obvious under W. that it would at least be somewhat muted until after the mid-terms. Silly me.
It may not be constitutional…..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html
It confirms the incompetence of this administration. Never in a million years would we have thought a year ago, they could have sunk to this.
Where is this hope and change at. The democrats are going against the constitution but doing what there doing. I am so ticked off at my party right now. They could have took pieces of this bill and passed it little by little so the americans would no what it is. It also should have been a public option and a womans right to choose to be respected in this bill. What House Speaker is doing is shady and she better watch because a good number in her own party is ticked and so are the republicans who smell blood is going to rip the democrats apart this year. I am a liberal democrat who will proberly end up voting for Sarah Palin if she runs as a republican or independent in 2012 if its Mitt Romney or someone else I will just stay home unless theres a good person that can take on president Obama as a independent. I am not going to go condone the behavior of my party no more.
I am pretty sick of it all (no pun intended). I just contacted my Congressman and urged him to vote whichever way makes it more likely for a public option bill to be brought up afterwards.
If voting the bill down makes a PO more likely, vote NO. If a failure of this bill makes more healthcare legislation more unlikely, then hold your nose and vote YES.
I specifically told him that I am uninterested in a Democratic “win”. I want a public option and so does 3/4 of Americans.
Wow, these folks Obama, Reid, and Pelosi can’t win on the issue alone. They have to resort to tactics such as “deem and pass” to get their health care monstrosity signed into law. This is not the proper way to go considering health care to be over 16% of our economy. There could be only a few beneficiaries from their efforts and it’s sure not the American people.
This is all wrong. How can they even think of doing this? It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m totally disgusted with the Democratic Party. They have forgotten who they represent.
There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about “deem and pass,” but that doesn’t mean Democrats are winning the messaging on this subject, which is how a party sinks or swims. (Taylor Marsh)
——-
You are quite correct Taylor. The Dems are definitely not winning on the message. But I do not agree that there is nothing that can’t be deemed (no pun intended) unconstitutional in “deem and pass”.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html
The Democratic leadership is playing with fire here. This is going to haunt the Democrats and will be ultimately disastrous for them come November.
nzanh says:
16 March 2010 at 6:23 pm
They may be annihilated in November. I can’t believe they’d try this tactic. It’s so wrong!
Great post Taylor!
I have to be honest here if the Dems were going to these legnths to pass medicare for all I would say use every trick in the book but for this misbegotten gift to Insurance,Big Pharma et all it is just unbelievable.
JoeBeets says:
16 March 2010 at 5:52 pm
I think I agree with your assessment, Joe.
Lake Lady says:
16 March 2010 at 6:52 pm
I agree – all this maneuvering for so little. It is puzzling. They have ignored what most of the public really wanted to begin with.
The latest polls indicates that 45% want a health care bill passed—any health care bill—by any means necessary, 44% want no health care bill to pass and 11% are out to lunch. I am a strong supporter of a single-payer, universal health care system. Because my views seldom coincide with what I am told is the norm, I have come to accept the fact that my point of view will almost never prevail. At least not in my lifetime. So being a realist I include myself in the 45% who want this health care bill to pass this week. Peace
After a lifetime being a Dem and voting straight Dem always,damn glad I’m a registered IND since the stolen sham of a Dem Primary.I voted for Obama, partly on Taylor’s urging,especially as gay man,felt i had no choice.Obama has been the biggest political disappointment of my lifetime,so much hope,so little realized..
The only thing the democrats were interested in from the beginning was the individual mandate forcing everyone to buy a health insurance plan.
It was in every bill…
How many bills was the public option in?
You’re not getting a public option. Insurance companies are getting you.
tonyb39 and evan13579b, I feel your pain. But like the 100 year old man answered when asked how he was feeling, “Not so hot, but it beats the alternative.” If not the Democrat then the alternative is a Republican. Raise your hand if you would have preferred McCain/Palin? Or in 2012 a Republican??? Peace
evan13579b says:
16 March 2010 at 7:34 pm
Welcome.
…and on the insurance mandate, I’m 100% with you.
tonyb39 says:
16 March 2010 at 7:32 pm
Well, all I can say is that McCain-Palin would have been worse. Cold frickin’ comfort, but that’s where we are in America, circa 21st century.
In a physician survey conducted December 2009 by The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm, 24.7% of physicians stated that they would “retire early” if a public option is implemented, and an additional 21.0% of respondents stated that they would quit practicing medicine, even though they are nowhere near retirement. This brings the amount of physicians who would leave medicine to a total of 45.7%.
More:
http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform
A majority…that’s MAJORITY…of Americans DO NOT want Obamacare passed. Once again: a MAJORITY.
(((Borrowing from Harry Truman here)))
If the Dems strong-arm this abomination through Congress, they may expect a rain of ruin the like of which never has been seen in the American political system.
FYI, My Congressman Dan Maffei has come out in favor of the bill.