Hastart moves towards one-party rule
Saturday, November 27th, 2004 - 7:31pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html?sub=...
Looks like Mr. Hastert is on the verge of formalizing a policy in which he will not bring any bills to the floor of the House unless they are supported by a majority of the Majority, no matter how many Democrats support them. It's been the practice in the past to allow votes on most bills that had strong support in the minority party, in the interests of passing bills that would benefit the country. With this move, if it is continued as policy and causes the failure of the Intelligence Reform bill, Hastert will set a very partisan standard.
This means that bills like the Intelligence Reform bill that are passable - supported by a majority of the House - but that are not deemed by Hastert as supported by a majority as Republicans, will never come to a vote.
I believe the precedent is obvious, and obviously bad. In the 1980's, for example, there were agreements as to the percentage of bills that the minority party would bring to the floor - it was around 25%. And oh yeah, all that talk about Democrats obstructing bipartisanship? This pretty much tells it like it really is...The Democrats did not institute this kind of behavior.
It's really indefensible. In the last year, the Democrats and even moderate Republicans have been told they could not participate in drawing up major legislation, with the result that they get to vote on important bills with only a few hours or less to read them and figure out what's in them. And votes have been held open for hours in violation of procedural standards while arms were twisted in attempts to change them. It's all in the same spirit.
I would think the Republicans would look at the split state of the country and want to work together with Democrats, as they claimed. But I'm not surprised to see this difference between rhetoric and behavior. If you think that having at least some balance in setting policy is a good thing, this should unsettle you pretty badly.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
If true, it is deeply worrying.
First sign of a stagnant entrenched democracy is the tinkering of the rules to reduce mobility and freedom of ideas. Either party rules or of the assembly.
Its happening slowly all over the Western world.
I often think that consequently in the long term, party politics are doomed to an unpopular slow death. A-ideological constituency based independants are the distant future for democratic peoples.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Churchill
If you are drawing on the principle that the party leadership is not responsible for it''s actions, I agree with you.
That''s like claiming ""Oh, it''s just the President, he doesn''t represent his entire party"". Hastert is a Constitutional leader, in line for the Presidency, not the head of a local chamber of commerce or something.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Ah, so it''s the fight between the Pentagon and the other agencies. That''s been going on for over a decade. I''ll note that the Pentagon was quite willing to mess with this process, as long as the ""Intelligence Czar"" was theirs.
I didn''t even see in the interview anything about *why* the reform bill is needed - these guys got the intel so wrong for so long that the system is broken, and everyone except the Pentagon seems to think that it needs to be fixed. Oddly, of the intel-related agencies, the Pentagon is the one with the largest number of politically appointed leaders...
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
True enough.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.