Friday, December 21, 2012

Gerard N. Magliocca — House "filibuster"

The latest breakdown of the fiscal cliff negotiations illustrates the problems created by another unwritten constitutional rule--no bill may be brought to the House floor unless it is supported by a majority of the majority party. It is possible that a budget measure could pass the House with the support of most Democrats and some Republicans, but that is not an option for the Speaker. The practice of requiring a majority of the House majority operates as a minority veto that is even more lopsided than the Senate filibuster, since it means that (typically) less than a third of the House can block action.
What is the source of this venerable tradition? The answer is that Dennis Hastert came up with this about ten years ago. [emphasis added]
Majority of a Majority
Gerard N. Magliocca


Matt Franko said...

Bad news today on the "cliff/ceiling" issue...

Treasury running surplus of +20B this month thru the 19th....


Ryan Harris said...

We have no way to protest the failing of the government except with small scale protests that don't threaten the status quo. Votes and elections have become meaningless and don't really change a thing because we can only vote for (R) or (D) which are nearly indistinguishable from one another. Dems are BETTER than Rebubs? Okay, if you say so. I sent a letter to my congressmen and Senators yesterday to complain about their performance exercising the power of the purse and received a nice canned spam back that bangs on about the dangers of deficits.

As if all the other costs associated with the two-party state partisans defending territory and dividing the electorate with meaningless rhetoric, racial and sectarian divisions in the last election wasn't appalling enough, now they imposed rules that prevent the government from carrying out basic functions.

A one party state at least allows a heterodox minority for appearances and responds to the broad needs of a population because they fear the development of a second party. Here we have no alternatives and are being held hostage by a group of leaders with single digit electorate support that surrounds themselves with the largest security apparatus in human history to defend themselves against, well actually, "the public" including the mentally ill that can't get treatment because the congressmen are too busy doing uhm... passing resolutions and generally being in Washington.

Ryan Harris said...

What spending categories are down m/m, Matt?

paul meli said...

Another post by Mike Lux that is related:

The Dem's are he'll-bent on destroying their own Party.

If we don't scream loudly enough we may need a successful House "filibuster" to save them from themselves.

It's a done deal unless somehow it can be de-railed at the last moment.

Matt Franko said...


No details but net withdrawals (Tot. withdrawals minus UST redemptions) at this point in Nov were $231B and at this point in Dec they are $186B.... pretty substantial m/m drop... we're getting "squeezed" as we get nearer the ceiling....


Tom Hickey said...

The establishments of both parties are so embroiled in crony capitalism and corruption that sufficient rage is building to oust both of the them as two sides of the same coin. But it may have to wait until the next crisis, which I don't see as being too far off since not only was nothing fixed but the financial sector became even more consolidated.

I'd say we are on the track that Strauss & Howe and Ravi Batra have laid down for social, political and economic transformation. Also Marx and Schumpeter in similar but different ways.