Rescission Could Be A Brilliant Solution For GOP
The Republican leadership in Congress is reportedly considering a brilliant idea. Now, normally when I start a column off with a line like that, my intent is to be as snarky and caustic as possible (especially when I use the word "brilliant"). Not this time, though -- this time I am offering nothing but praise for what could indeed be a great way for Republicans to solve their internal struggle about how to respond to President Obama's upcoming new policy on immigration. I say this because while the idea of rescission would certainly allow the Tea Partiers to stage a big political drama, it would also allow the adults in the Republican Party to move the possibility of shutting down the government completely off the table for almost a year into the future. At this point, that seems like a win-win proposition for all, and about the best of all the possible scenarios.
Republicans are gearing up to respond to Obama's new immigration announcement. They are currently considering a number of possible paths to take, all of which hinge on the federal budget. They are facing an upcoming deadline (December 11) to pass some sort of budget bill for the remainder of the 2015 fiscal year. They could either pass a bill covering the whole year (taking us to next October), pass a bill which punts the problem to the new Congress (they'd likely extend it only a few months, to force the new Congress to act fairly quickly), pass some sort of partial budget (defunding the parts they didn't like), or not pass anything and shut the government down right before Christmas. Those are the basic four options.
The Establishment Republicans are pushing to pass a full year's budget, to get it out of the way and offer the American economy some stability. The next Congress would then be free to have new battles over the 2016 budget which they'd need to pass by October -- which, incidentally, is the way things are supposed to happen in normal times. The Tea Partiers, however, are pushing for more confrontation sooner (of course). Some of them would be happy to have a big bruising budget battle in the next few weeks, in fact. Some are now pushing for passing portions of the federal budget, but either refusing to pass other portions (in protest over Obama's action) or passing them with zero money allocated to implement Obama's new plan.
There's a big problem with the Tea Party strategy, however -- a problem the Republican leadership is well aware of. Tea Partiers are convinced that the weapon they can wield will be so daunting that President Obama will just capitulate rather than watch it be used. They were convinced of this a year ago, but Obama did not capitulate and the government shut down for three weeks. The Republican leadership is desperately trying to avoid walking into this trap once again. Rescission could be the best way for Republicans to avoid this trap.
The way it would work would be for Republicans to pass a reasonable budget bill now which covers all of next year. It would need to be fairly reasonable, because it's going to need some Democratic votes to get passed (probably in both chambers of Congress). So Senate Democrats can influence the parameters of the bill to some degree. The Tea Partiers will howl, but mainstream Republicans in the House and Senate, together with a handful of Democrats, can manage to get some sort of budget on Obama's desk that he can actually sign without too many reservations.
Next year, the Tea Partiers would be let loose in to stage their big political melodrama. A rescission bill would be drafted which yanked back certain money from the president's control -- money already appropriated. This is the definition of rescission: snipping away at budgets already in place. The Tea Partiers could run amok and de-fund everything they don't like in Obama's agenda. They'd be running amok while holding a pair of rescissors, so to speak.
At heart, the idea's pretty silly, when it comes to immigration. On Obamacare, for instance, a rescission bill could do major damage to an Obama program. But on immigration, the way the Tea Partiers would be protesting would be to zero out the budget for things like the Border Patrol. How is that going to achieve their aims? Furloughing all the agents along the border doesn't solve any problem at all, but being illogical has never stopped Tea Partiers before.
But the main thing is that it would all be a giant exercise in blowing hot air. Nothing would result from the effort. The government wouldn't shut down. The budget would remain in place. Why? Because any rescission bill needs to be signed into law by the president. Which he just isn't going to do. This is why it's such a brilliant idea -- because at the end of the day, after all the shouting's done, it would have precisely zero effect on the full faith and credit of the United States of America.
Some Republicans are a bit unclear on this concept. Several have been recently quoted saying it'd only take a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress to accomplish rescission. They are wrong. The bill, like all others, would require either a signature from the president or veto-proof (two-thirds) majorities in both houses of Congress. It will not get either of these things.
This is the brilliant part about the rescission tactic. The Republican leadership will pass a budget bill in the next few weeks, with some Democratic help, and then everyone can go home for the holidays. When the new Congress convenes next year, the Tea Partiers can rant and rave and have the biggest dog-and-pony show for the media that they can manage. They'll spend weeks and weeks letting off steam, and they'll whip themselves into a rescission frenzy. They will terrify their fellow Republicans (with threats of primary challenges to come), who will likely wind up voting for the rescission bill. They will triumphantly place this rescission bill on President Obama's desk, with the cameras rolling and lots of talk of the importance of their actions. And then President Obama will veto it.
It'll be the same knock-down drag-out budget brouhaha we've been locked into for the past four years, but with an important difference. During all the previous fiscal cliffs and government shutdown threats, if nothing was achieved then everything ground to a halt. Inaction produced disaster, in other words. This time around, the battle will be just as frenzied, but when it all falls apart the budget will still be in place. It effectively takes the dangerous weapon of a government shutdown out of the hands of the petulant children who don't understand the dangers of using it. Holding a multi-week temper tantrum in Congress will allow for much political hay to be made on both sides of the aisle, but there will be no looming disaster which requires congressional action by a deadline. Just the opposite, in fact.
This is why rescission is such a brilliant idea. If the Republican leadership can sell it to enough of its members, it could be a way out of the perpetual crisis machine that the budget has become. By separating the politics from the actual real-world results, it allows both factions of the Republican Party to get what they want. The Establishment Republicans will know that there won't be a government shutdown until at least next October, which will make their Big Business bosses very happy. The Tea Party will be allowed to spend months making fiery speeches and denouncing the dictatorial Obama to their heart's content. They'll be able to dominate the Washington narrative well into next year. They'll be allowed to fashion as extreme a bill as they feel like, and they'll also likely be able to browbeat most of the other Republicans into voting for it. A good time is guaranteed for all, in other words.
But at the end of the day, the National Parks will still be open and the Social Security checks will still be in the mail. President Obama will veto the bill, and we can all rest assured that the government will not shutter its doors after the dust has settled.
I have no idea what the chances are of the Republican leadership selling this idea to its Tea Party members. It would strip the Tea Partiers of a lot of real-world power, in exchange for being let off the leash to play politics, without the threat of real-word consequences. Perhaps they can be convinced to follow this route -- as I said, I have no idea of its chances. Perhaps enough of them can be convinced that there is some magic way they can pass a rescission bill with 218 House votes and 51 Senate votes and have it become law without Obama's signature. That sounds snarky, but listen to what one Republican House member had to say about what his own leadership was telling him about the plan:
Chairman [Hal] Rogers just got up and said if we pass an omnibus [budget bill] and then the president does this executive amnesty, he said we can rescind it, and we can rescind it with 218 and 51 and we don't need the president. That's what he just told me. I've never heard that before.
So perhaps enough of them can be convinced that this is true (spoiler alert: it isn't). If this false promise is believed by enough Tea Partiers, then perhaps a year-long budget bill could pass within the next few weeks, and they wouldn't realize they'd been snookered until afterwards. But however they manage it, by hook or crook, the new Republican rescission strategy would be the best way forward for the country, because it would divorce the political frenzy from the threat of shutting down the government. Which is why I think it's such a brilliant idea.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Basically, what ya want is to let Obama and the Democrats have everything they want, even if it imperils the country..
That's not leadership.
That's the OPPOSITE of leadership...
Keep in mind, that the Republicans and the American people are on the same side in these issues...
Michale
Here's a better plan for the GOP to follow..
The First Rule of Amnesty Fight Club
Don’t make this a battle between Congress and the president. Make it a battle within Congress.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/19/the-first-rule-of-amnesty-fight-club/
That would ALSO have the advantage of being personally satisfying to me as well...
Michale
It's going to be interesting to see which event get's the most media attention..
Obama's executive overreach... Or the Ferguson rioting and looting..
Michale
Ya'all should think long and hard about supporting such Executive Overreach...
Imagine the consequences of such unbridled in the hands of a Republican POTUS...
That alone should have ya'all speaking out against Obama's plans...
Michale
Michale [2],
If I understood correctly, your solution for the GOP would be to completely ignore the problems facing Americans in favor of stripping away all political power from the minority party in an attempt to back them so thoroughly into a corner that they'll surrender unconditionally? This seems like a terrible plan on multiple levels.
Most obviously, it involves congress and the senate completely ignoring the problems of the American people. While this may be something of a tradition in American politics, it's certainly not one that should be done intentionally.
Secondly, it would be destroying the minority party's ability to check the power of the majority party. While I do think that the filibuster has been abused in recent years, I have never thought that it should be removed. I have supported a change in the filibuster to reduce the requirements to break it over time, but never to remove it outright. While I do not have evidence handy, I suspect that a majority of Americans would feel similarly, and see the complete removal of the filibuster and power from the minority party to be a huge power grab by republicans (as they would have had democrats done the same thing while they were in power).
Lastly, I think the idea that backing democrats into a corner by stripping away their power in order to force them to force Obama to capitulate is a flawed concept in and of itself. That would essentially be bullying, and doing so would likely be unpopular with the American people in general. Another problem is that bullied people don't always just submit to it. When pressed enough, some people will circle the wagons and even lash out in unpredictable ways. I think that rather than accepting the republican power grab and surrendering, they would find alternate ways to fight back, and possibly even unify in a way that the democratic party hasn't been able to in years, if ever.
If I understood correctly, your solution for the GOP would be to completely ignore the problems facing Americans in favor of stripping away all political power from the minority party in an attempt to back them so thoroughly into a corner that they'll surrender unconditionally? This seems like a terrible plan on multiple levels.
Nope, you totally missed where I am coming from...
The problem facing Americans are caused by an out of control Democrat Party who ignores the will of the people to pursue an agenda that is harmful to this country..
By taking the fight to the Democrats in Congress rather than Obama, it will force the Democrats to pressure Obama to put the country ahead of his agenda..
Most obviously, it involves congress and the senate completely ignoring the problems of the American people.
You mean, like how Democrats have been doing for the last 6 years???
The problem with your entire comment is that it ignores what the problem is...
The problem is a Democrat Party that cares more for their partisan agenda than they do for the American people..
WHICH, I might add, the American people made totally and unequivocally clear in the last mid-term elections...
Lastly, I think the idea that backing democrats into a corner by stripping away their power in order to force them to force Obama to capitulate is a flawed concept in and of itself.
You didn't think there was a flaw when Democrats were doing it to Republicans??
I think that rather than accepting the republican power grab
There hasn't been any "republican power grab"... There has been an election where the American people made unequivocally and indisputably clear that the Democrat way is NOT the way the American people want to go..
The people have spoken...
The Democrats are ignoring the American people..
So, the best course for Republicans is to remind the Democrat Party *WHO* the people have chosen...
Thanx for the reply, though.. I have been getting lonely.. :D
Michale
To lay it out succinctly, considering how the Democrat Party has governed the last 6 years, Democrats have absolutely NO CLAIM to the moral high ground, the moral low ground or ANY moral ground whatsoever...
"So say we all..."
Michale
Michale [6]
I was basing my response on the article you linked to. The suggestion that the writer put forth, to the best of my understanding, was for republicans stop fighting over immigration and other topics that the republicans are in conflict with the president over, and instead threaten to rewrite the rules of the senate to completely exclude the minority party from any participation (no filibuster, no minority party positions on any committees, etc.) in order to force Obama to submit to their will. That would be a tremendous power grab by republicans, or any majority party for that matter. Democrats may have considered such tactics in their heart of hearts, but they weren't foolish enough to go through with them. I find it incredibly hard to believe that republicans would either, but I'm simply using the hypothetical that was put forth.
You also are jumping to the conclusion that I support all the decisions and methods of the democrats in recent years. I straight up stated that it has long been a tradition in American politics (to clarify, that is regardless of political party) to ignore the problems of the American people. I didn't state that it would be something new, only that it's not something that should be directly set forth as part of a political agenda. I also do think that the democrats have used flawed processes, but I think the republicans are more to blame because they have continuously changed what they have considered an acceptable compromise to the point of ridiculousness.
That would be a tremendous power grab by republicans, or any majority party for that matter.
It would be no different than what Harry Reid did when he eliminated the filibuster..
Democrats may have considered such tactics in their heart of hearts, but they weren't foolish enough to go through with them.
Except when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster..
You also are jumping to the conclusion that I support all the decisions and methods of the democrats in recent years.
Yes I am.. Mainly because I haven't heard anyone (sans yours truly) denouncing Democrat decisions or methods...
Silence gives assent, as they say... :D
I also do think that the democrats have used flawed processes, but I think the republicans are more to blame because they have continuously changed what they have considered an acceptable compromise to the point of ridiculousness.
I disagree... What you call "point of ridiculousness" is nothing more than the Republicans basically doing what they were hired to do..
Reign in Democrats..
That's the point of fact that you simply cannot deny...
The American people have UNEQUIVOCALLY stated to the Democrat Party.....
***STOP!!!!!!!***
And the Republicans have been put in power to do that very thing...
It's not the Republicans that are being ridiculous.. It's the Democrats who are being ridiculous for not listening to the American people..
And, since Democrats are listening, the Republicans are fully justified to make sure that Democrats can't do any more harm..
Hence, the idea to totally castrate Democrats in Congress is both logical and rational, given the stance and the orders of the American people...
"Simple logic"
-Spock, STAR TREK IV, THE FINAL FRONTIER
:D
Michale
Program Note:
I will be posting a "snap reaction" column after Obama's speech. Hence, it will appear a little later than usual.
Just to let everyone know in advance...
-CW
So, Michale, according to your logic...
After the election of 2008, when the American people clearly rebuked the Republicans, then they should have helped Obama and the Democrats pass their agenda, instead of fighting everything tooth and nail, right?
Again, by your logic...
-CW
Like I have said time and again..
With the exception of National Security or Public Safety, the will of the American people is priority number one..
The Democrat Party forgot that... TWICE...
Hence the Great Shellacking Of 2010 and the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014....
And, if the Republicans forget that, then THEY might get shellacked in 2016....
"And so it goes and so it goes...."
-Billy Joel
Michale
So, Michale, according to your logic...
After the election of 2008, when the American people clearly rebuked the Republicans, then they should have helped Obama and the Democrats pass their agenda, instead of fighting everything tooth and nail, right?
Again, by your logic...
In general, yes, I would agree with that...
However, you would have to pick out specific agendas and provide the polls that show that the American people were for or against specific agenda items...
You have to remember, in the days after the 2008 election, I was fully and completely on board with Obama's agenda....
In HINDSIGHT, it probably wouldn't have been a good idea to give the Democrat Party a free hand.. This country would be in WORST shape than it already is..
But yes... If the polls showed that the American people were firmly for/against A, B and C, then Republicans should have responded accordingly...
Michale
I will be posting a "snap reaction" column after Obama's speech. Hence, it will appear a little later than usual.
Just to let everyone know in advance...
That'll be past my bedtime, so I'll catch up in the morning.. :D
Michale
Michale [13] -
OK, now we're getting somewhere. The American people overWHELMingly support an increase in the minimum wage. I can prove this by the 2014 election, where it passed in all 5 states it was up for a vote. 4 of those states were red states -- this is not some "liberal conspiracy" in other words.
So, how many quatloos do you want to bet that Republicans will never bring it up with their new control of Congress?
Republicans don't care a bit for the average worker. They never have, and they never will. No matter what the polls (or "the American people") say.
-CW
OK, now we're getting somewhere. The American people overWHELMingly support an increase in the minimum wage. I can prove this by the 2014 election, where it passed in all 5 states it was up for a vote. 4 of those states were red states -- this is not some "liberal conspiracy" in other words.
A min wage increase of 25 CENTS passed in all 5 states...
That's hardly support for Democrats and their desire to up it to $10 or $20 an hour...
Tell ya what.. If you get Democrats to agree to a min wage increase of 50 cents per hour, I can GUARANTEE you that Republicans will go along.. :D
Republicans don't care a bit for the average worker. They never have, and they never will. .
And Democrats do???
If this is true, explain why under Obama and the Demcorats, the top 10% got richer and the middle class and the lower class got poorer...
Michale
Republicans don't care a bit for the average worker. They never have, and they never will. .
And yet, the "average worker" totally and unequivocally decimated the ranks of Democrat politicians in local, state and federal elections and put Republicans in their stead....
Apparently, the "average worker" now feels that Republicans are better suited to govern than Democrats...
I'm just sayin'.. :D
Michale
I am sorry to say (really I am) that any argument you can make against the GOP has been nullified by the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...
The simple fact is, the American people overwhelmingly chose the Republicans to lead and the Democrats to follow...
As annoying as it is, it's really that simple...
Michale
Just answer me one single, simple question.
In areas outside of National Security or Public Safety, is the will of the American people more important than Party agenda??
It's a simple YES or NO question...
Betcha no one can answer...
Michale
And yet, the "average worker" totally and unequivocally decimated the ranks of Democrat politicians in local, state and federal elections and put Republicans in their stead....
I think if you look at voter turnout and demographics, you will see the "average worker" totally and unequivocally did not care and sat this one out...
In areas outside of National Security or Public Safety, is the will of the American people more important than Party agenda??
Translation: the will of the people is important except when it conflicts with your personal agenda.
There is absolutely no reason that a democracy based society could chose to run fast and free with both national security or public safety if it is the will of a significant majority. I would hope they would not, but would also hate to live in a society that that choice is taken away...
There is also a bit of hypocrisy here as you support gun rights, which statistically goes heavily against public safety...
I think if you look at voter turnout and demographics, you will see the "average worker" totally and unequivocally did not care and sat this one out...
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
-RUSH
"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself."
-Captain James T. Kirk
Either by commission or omission, the American people have spoken...
Translation: the will of the people is important except when it conflicts with your personal agenda.
Innaccurate...
The will of the people is important unless it is a danger to themselves or others...
There is absolutely no reason that a democracy based society could chose to run fast and free with both national security or public safety if it is the will of a significant majority.
The problem with that is, in areas of National Security or Public Safety a position taken by the American people is taken in ignorance...
There is also a bit of hypocrisy here as you support gun rights, which statistically goes heavily against public safety...
Only if you cherry pick your statistics. Overall, statistics AND public opinion show that an armed society is a SAFE society..
AND a polite society...
Michale
Either by commission or omission, the American people have spoken...
And the ONLY reason ya'all have a problem with it is that ya'all don't like what the people said...
So much so that ya'all even refuse to acknowledge that the people said it...
Michale
Either by commission or omission, the American people have spoken...
Or at least you have spoken for them...
Innaccurate...
The will of the people is important unless it is a danger to themselves or others...
In your opinion...
The problem with that is, in areas of National Security or Public Safety a position taken by the American people is taken in ignorance...
Ah, so if the American People disagree with you they are ignorant...
Only if you cherry pick your statistics. Overall, statistics AND public opinion show that an armed society is a SAFE society..
Complete and utter bullshit. Compare any modern industrialized society that has banned or heavily restricted guns and you will find a murder rate at least an order of magnitude lower than ours. You are the one to cherry pick on this issue as I have proven my times...
[22]
What's up with the replying to your own comments? You seem to be doing it a lot recently. Are you becoming one of those crazy people that has long conversations with themselves that most people cross the street to avoid?
Or at least you have spoken for them...
Clarify...
In your opinion...
Of course in my opinion...
Ah, so if the American People disagree with you they are ignorant...
Now yer just being obtuse...
The American people are ignorant of many MANY aspects of National Security..
Complete and utter bullshit. Compare any modern industrialized society that has banned or heavily restricted guns and you will find a murder rate at least an order of magnitude lower than ours. You are the one to cherry pick on this issue as I have proven my times...
You have SAID it many times..
You haven't proven dick.. :D
What's up with the replying to your own comments? You seem to be doing it a lot recently. Are you becoming one of those crazy people that has long conversations with themselves that most people cross the street to avoid?
Just an addendum to my original point.. :D
Michale