Interesting article on the real problem with Pay-Go
- Total Posts: 8,843
With all but one Republican expected to vote against the rules package, Democrats can afford only 19 defections on the floor. Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez’s opposition seemed to signal a potential flood of defections that could force a last-minute rewrite. But neither Khanna nor the Progressive Caucus were actively whipping against the rules package Wednesday, and few others seemed willing to publicly threaten votes against it. Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan, meanwhile, tweeted that he had gotten assurances from Democratic leaders that the new PAYGO rule “will not be an impediment to advancing key progressive priorities in the 116thCongress.” In other words: He had gotten assurances that the rule, when inconvenient, would just be waived by a simple majority vote in the House.
That gets to a bigger point that Pocan also makes in his tweets: The real pay-go problem for progressives is the pay-go law that Congress passed in 2010, not the House’s pay-go rule, which comes and goes and gets waived or circumvented over and over.
The 2010 law requires that tax cuts and mandatory spending increases not boost the deficit. (It does not pertain to discretionary spending considered through the appropriations process.) If Congress violates the rule, then the Office of Management and Budget is authorized to make cuts to mandatory-spending programs to match the violation. Since this is law, waiving statutory pay-go for any particular violation would require legislation that’s subject to the 60-vote Senate filibuster. Republicans, for example, passed a pay-go waiver for their tax-reform bill last year in a separate spending bill. Democrats went along with that after the tax bill already had enough Republican votes to protect harmful, automatic Medicare cuts. Some Democrats argue, though, that if the tables were reversed, and Democrats were passing big legislation, Republicans might be less willing to go along with Democratic waivers to block automatic, mandatory spending cuts.
So, as Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, tweeted in response to Khanna and other critics of the new pay-go rule, the rule at least offers them an opportunity to put forward their own pay-fors for their progressive legislation—including tax increases—as the alternative to the “indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts in federal mandatory spending” that would arise without a waiver for statutory pay-go. (As a side note, this is an interesting way to describe the effects of a bill that Pelosi ushered through when she was speaker.)
January 3, 2019 at 9:15 AM #7928HalfCentury ManParticipant
- Total Posts: 847
“It’s not bad at all, see there’s mustard and cheese on your sh*t sandwich”.
It is simple. This is the litmus test the establishment dems rallied against. If you vote for it, you are not a progressive. End of Story.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy: 13 March 1962.
January 3, 2019 at 9:19 AM #7930ThouArtThatParticipant
- Total Posts: 4,426
Ro hit the nail on the head – so much of what passes for progressive politics today is rooted in 30 or 40 year old perspectives.
"The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
- George Orwell
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
"Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
- Idries Shah
"A riot is the language of the unheard."
- Martin Luther King
"Hope is faith waiting on tomorrow."
January 3, 2019 at 9:59 AM #7937Ohio BarbarianModerator
- Total Posts: 18,621
But if that is the case, why have it in the first place, except for debt warrior posturing? Hammill doesn’t help the hypocritical Vichy Dem cause by saying that if these rules changes aren’t passed, then Mulvaney and the Republicans control the rules. That is simply a flat-out lie. The majority in the House can pretty much make up their rules as they go along.
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs
Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman
January 3, 2019 at 10:44 AM #7950JustSayinParticipant
- Total Posts: 535
that ASSURED that he would stand with unions protesting and this was beforehe screwed all unions and Americans. Assurances mean sqat especially from neoliberals
““will not be an impediment to advancing key progressive priorities” ~ so why have it? do the dems think that 100% of progressives are stupid? 2016 proved that even 10% of us not falling in line would send their hacks rolling in the woods
Never expect different result by following the previous steps
January 3, 2019 at 10:55 AM #7956ravensongParticipant
- Total Posts: 2,222
this time. I know I have done so every time in the past, causing you to fall on your butt. But once again, I absolutely assure you, I won’t do it this time.”
“A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority.” ~ Booker T. Washington
The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.