{"id":3730,"date":"2010-12-28T11:12:32","date_gmt":"2010-12-28T19:12:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=3730"},"modified":"2010-12-28T11:12:32","modified_gmt":"2010-12-28T19:12:32","slug":"republican-reconciliation-rules-a-stacked-deck","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2010\/12\/28\/republican-reconciliation-rules-a-stacked-deck\/","title":{"rendered":"Republican Reconciliation Rules: A Stacked Deck"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Democrats took the House in 2006, they did the responsible thing and instituted PAYGO.  But House Republicans are changing the rules to stack the deck against the American people.  The following article explains the changes and examines some effects.  However the author seems to miss that Republicans are laying the groundwork to take back most of what Obama gained in negotiating the Tax Capitulation Act.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"BonerOrange\"In 2007, just weeks after Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and six years after the first passel of Bush tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats made a key change to the budget rules to prevent that episode from repeating itself.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Republicans had used the budget reconciliation process — immune from a filibuster — to pass the cuts and explode the deficit: two things the reconciliation process was never meant to allow<\/strong>. To get away with it, Republicans were forced to include a 10-year sunset in package — planting the seeds for the tax cut fight we just saw on Capitol Hill. After Dems wrested control of Congress, they banned the reconciliation loopholes used by the GOP altogether<\/strong>.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

But as they return to power in the House of Representatives, Republicans are taking steps to unravel those changes<\/strong>. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities <\/font><\/font>examined<\/font><\/a><\/font> the GOP’s proposed new rules for the House, and here’s what they found. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

The new rules would stand the reconciliation process on its head, by allowing the House to use reconciliation to push through bills that greatly increase deficits as long as the deficit increases result from tax cuts, while barring the use of reconciliation in the House for legislation that reduces the deficit if that legislation contains a net increase in spending (no matter how small) that is more than offset by revenue-raising provisions<\/strong>.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

To translate: Bush tax cuts are fine, but, say, paying for infrastructure projects by taxing carbon would be forbidden, even if the net result would be a reduction in the deficit\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <TPM<\/a>><\/p>\n

What I see happening here is that, when it comes time to fund unemployment extensions, Republicans will demand offsets from either entitlement spending or stimulative spending.  In addition, using reconciliation rules to pass more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in the House, prevents Democrats in the Senate from using even a talking filibuster to block an alliance between Republicans and DINOs.  This leaves, the veto pen as the only defense, and I fear the hand holding that pen is a shaky one.<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When Democrats took the House in 2006, they did the responsible thing and instituted PAYGO.  But House Republicans are changing the rules to stack the deck against the American people.  The following article explains the changes and examines some effects.  However the author seems to miss that Republicans are laying the groundwork to take back […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3730","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3730\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}