5 ms·

I thought the issue was in the House, and this does not say that the House's game of chicken is over and anything has been resolved there, merely that "some" re

by dmazin 13y ago

I thought the issue was in the House, and this does not say that the House's game of chicken is over and anything has been resolved there, merely that "some" republicans are joining the democrats. Can someone explain why this item means good news?

andy112 13y ago
The primary reason the House has been a deal-stopper so far is more because of Boehner's resistance to bring bills to the floor unless they would be supported by a majority of the House Republicans regardless of whether they'd pass a floor vote. It's assuming (IMO correctly) that it will be too politically difficult for Boehner to prevent the Senate's bill from coming to the floor of the House and being voted on. In the House vote, it's likely the most conservative House members will still vote against it, but there should be more than enough votes for it to be passed (with the House votes coming from moderate Republicans + all/nearly all Democrats).
- JRobertson 13y ago
  Boenher's refusal to bring the bill to the floor has been frustrating. Equally frustrating has been Harry Reid's refusal to bring bills to the Senate floor. Both sides were standing firm by their "ideals". Neither side made any sincere efforts to find an actual solution.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Republicans didn't know how to compromise here. Allegedly, they want to open the government. All Democrats want to do is open the government. Apparently, both sides want to open the government. So... why should Democrats cede the Republicans on issues? Compromise is when both sides give up something to meet in the middle. But Republicans haven't "given up" anything in any of their deals.
    - JRobertson 13y ago
      I agree 100%. I mentioned "Both sides" in my post. I am equally frustrated by the republicans and the Democrats. When the Republican leader of the house refuses to bring bills to the floor AND the Democratic leader of the Senate refuses to bring bills to the floor they're both playing politics. I'm not arguing that democrats are to blame. I'm arguing that BOTH sides are involved in these games, and BOTH sides should have been willing to bring more to the table. I'm disappointed in how quickly HN is heading towards Reddit in its down voting. You can't even try to keep the conversation factual and mention the issues on both sides. Either you jump in with the current media story of how it's all republicans fault or you get down voted.
protomyth 13y ago
"It remains unclear whether the Senate bill can muster enough votes in the Republican-led House to pass before the 17 October deadline." The US has actually defaulted a couple of times. During the War of 1812 (duh, war) and in 1979 (glitch?!?). About half the debt limit raises have had other terms ("dirty"). I should mention debt limit and paying service on the debt are separate things and the US still has enough income every month to service the debt, but they tend to get put together to add to the stress.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  That's a false equivalence. Almost all bills have "dirty" attachments, but no party has ever held up the debt limit bills until the last minute like this, or attempted to extort concessions. The Republican talking points are trying to compare Obama show-voting against the debt limit, or Tip O'Neil negotiating with Reagan, but in those circumstances, there was never the threat to take the government to the edge of the deadline. Prior to the recent crop of idealogue Republicans in the House, much political compromise came about by horse trading legislation, earmarks, committee appointments, et al, behind closed doors. Now with earmarks mostly gone, Tea Party republicans have nothing to show off to their constituents except for achievements in idealogical concessions from the other side. This is a new and dangerous precedent because "compromise" on idealogy appears as a loss to one's radical constituents. Your congressman used to go home and brag about an earmark for a local library or bridge, now he goes home to brag about how to overturned a Obamacare. In no way is the current disfunction "the way it's always been" or "business as usual" Also, the idea that the US can prioritize payments like that is false. First of all, the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default. Secondly, the Treasury's ancient computer systems can't just be updated overnight to hand these kinds of changes, secretary Jack Lew said as much. Republicans have no faith the government can fix healthcare websites, but somehow are willing to risk the health of the US economy on the treasury to be agile and fast moving enough to both update computer systems as well as navigate a legal morass of contractual obligations to avoid potentially missing debt repayments. Trying to downplay a default IMHO is pretty irresponsible. We don't need to run this experiment.
  - 13y ago
ecoffey 13y ago
Because it's still part of the Republican caucus publicly agreeing to something, so hopefully they can influence some pressure on the Speaker / House. But yes, this still needs to get through the house, and if it does we've just kicked the can to Jan.
mikeryan 13y ago
The House has enough Democrats and swing Republicans to pass a bill to avoid the default and reopen the gov't, the problem right now is even the Republicans (who control the house) can't agree on a bill to put up for a vote (or at least agree on one that will pass the democrat controlled senate). There's literally nothing to vote on. If the Senate agrees on a bill and it gets put up for a vote in the House it will probably get through with all the dems and enough Republicans to pass.
- erichurkman 13y ago
  I wonder if this means that the leadership in the House will bypass the Hastert Rule to allow the Senate bill to be brought up for a straight up/down vote. They've supposedly had the votes for a clean CR for a while, but the Speaker has not permitted a vote to come to the floor due to the GOP's adherence to requiring a "majority of the majority" to approve a vote to reach the floor. If you exclude the Tea Party caucus Republicans, the majority of the majority just isn't there.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Wikipedia lists 4 instances where Speaker Boehner has broken the "Hastert Rule". Really, the "rule" is common sense for the Speaker of the House. If the Speaker wishes to keep his job, he should follow the rule. But as demonstrated in the past, Boehner is willing to break the rule to get some bills passed. Boehner is subject to two masters: the 8th district of Ohio, and the Republican Caucus. The first keeps him a Representative, and the second keeps him the speaker of the house. Keeping both pleased is necessary if he wants to continue working as Speaker.
- mcherm 13y ago
  But none of that has changed. All along the house has had enough votes to pass a bill exactly like this. The catch has been that the Speaker of the House has a policy (not a house rule at all) of not bringing anything up unless he knows it will get passed with no democratic votes at all. This policy is what prevents moderates from both parties from reaching some reasonable agreement.
ensignavenger 13y ago
The "problem" is that the House, the Senate, and the President (unless a veto is overcome) all have to agree- and so far, that hasn't happened. The Dems have a pretty good PR department, and are doing a good job of spinning it as though it is a problem with the (Republican led) House, though.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > The Dems have a pretty good PR department, and are doing a good job of spinning it as though it is a problem with the (Republican led) House, though. This is funny. Even funnier is that the Republicans don't realize that most of society doesn't share their values or opinions. http://www.taylormarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obama_WhiteHouseConfederateFlag.jpg http://www.taylormarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obama_...
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Your comment is extremely disingenuous. House Republicans have failed at all efforts at blocking the ACA/Obamacare, and are now attempting to play chicken against global markets in order to effect the outcome they desire. They should be dragged to a public square, tarred and feathered.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Nobody needs PR crew to spin it that way. Only a lunatic could have honestly believe that a president would abandon his most significant achievement since taking office. So either Boehner and the minority of Republicans he is working with are lunatics, or else they are willing to risk ravaging an already suffering economy for the sake of undoing a single law.
  - ensignavenger 13y ago
    Few of the Rethuglicans actually expect the President or the Dems to completely abandon ObamaCare. They would like a few concessions, perhaps merely offering a delay for a year in the individual mandate while the dust settles on the health exchanges, would have been enough. Up until a few days ago, the dems refused to even talk to the rethuglicans about it.

by dmazin 13y ago

andy112 13y ago

The primary reason the House has been a deal-stopper so far is more because of Boehner's resistance to bring bills to the floor unless they would be supported by a majority of the House Republicans regardless of whether they'd pass a floor vote. It's assuming (IMO correctly) that it will be too politically difficult for Boehner to prevent the Senate's bill from coming to the floor of the House and being voted on. In the House vote, it's likely the most conservative House members will still vote against it, but there should be more than enough votes for it to be passed (with the House votes coming from moderate Republicans + all/nearly all Democrats).

JRobertson 13y ago
Boenher's refusal to bring the bill to the floor has been frustrating. Equally frustrating has been Harry Reid's refusal to bring bills to the Senate floor. Both sides were standing firm by their "ideals". Neither side made any sincere efforts to find an actual solution.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Republicans didn't know how to compromise here. Allegedly, they want to open the government. All Democrats want to do is open the government. Apparently, both sides want to open the government. So... why should Democrats cede the Republicans on issues? Compromise is when both sides give up something to meet in the middle. But Republicans haven't "given up" anything in any of their deals.
  - JRobertson 13y ago
    I agree 100%. I mentioned "Both sides" in my post. I am equally frustrated by the republicans and the Democrats. When the Republican leader of the house refuses to bring bills to the floor AND the Democratic leader of the Senate refuses to bring bills to the floor they're both playing politics. I'm not arguing that democrats are to blame. I'm arguing that BOTH sides are involved in these games, and BOTH sides should have been willing to bring more to the table. I'm disappointed in how quickly HN is heading towards Reddit in its down voting. You can't even try to keep the conversation factual and mention the issues on both sides. Either you jump in with the current media story of how it's all republicans fault or you get down voted.

protomyth 13y ago

"It remains unclear whether the Senate bill can muster enough votes in the Republican-led House to pass before the 17 October deadline." The US has actually defaulted a couple of times. During the War of 1812 (duh, war) and in 1979 (glitch?!?). About half the debt limit raises have had other terms ("dirty"). I should mention debt limit and paying service on the debt are separate things and the US still has enough income every month to service the debt, but they tend to get put together to add to the stress.

cromwellian 13y ago
That's a false equivalence. Almost all bills have "dirty" attachments, but no party has ever held up the debt limit bills until the last minute like this, or attempted to extort concessions. The Republican talking points are trying to compare Obama show-voting against the debt limit, or Tip O'Neil negotiating with Reagan, but in those circumstances, there was never the threat to take the government to the edge of the deadline. Prior to the recent crop of idealogue Republicans in the House, much political compromise came about by horse trading legislation, earmarks, committee appointments, et al, behind closed doors. Now with earmarks mostly gone, Tea Party republicans have nothing to show off to their constituents except for achievements in idealogical concessions from the other side. This is a new and dangerous precedent because "compromise" on idealogy appears as a loss to one's radical constituents. Your congressman used to go home and brag about an earmark for a local library or bridge, now he goes home to brag about how to overturned a Obamacare. In no way is the current disfunction "the way it's always been" or "business as usual" Also, the idea that the US can prioritize payments like that is false. First of all, the Republicans have tried numerous times to actually ban the practice of prioritizing payments to avoid default. Secondly, the Treasury's ancient computer systems can't just be updated overnight to hand these kinds of changes, secretary Jack Lew said as much. Republicans have no faith the government can fix healthcare websites, but somehow are willing to risk the health of the US economy on the treasury to be agile and fast moving enough to both update computer systems as well as navigate a legal morass of contractual obligations to avoid potentially missing debt repayments. Trying to downplay a default IMHO is pretty irresponsible. We don't need to run this experiment.
- 13y ago

ecoffey 13y ago

Because it's still part of the Republican caucus publicly agreeing to something, so hopefully they can influence some pressure on the Speaker / House. But yes, this still needs to get through the house, and if it does we've just kicked the can to Jan.

mikeryan 13y ago

The House has enough Democrats and swing Republicans to pass a bill to avoid the default and reopen the gov't, the problem right now is even the Republicans (who control the house) can't agree on a bill to put up for a vote (or at least agree on one that will pass the democrat controlled senate). There's literally nothing to vote on. If the Senate agrees on a bill and it gets put up for a vote in the House it will probably get through with all the dems and enough Republicans to pass.

erichurkman 13y ago
I wonder if this means that the leadership in the House will bypass the Hastert Rule to allow the Senate bill to be brought up for a straight up/down vote. They've supposedly had the votes for a clean CR for a while, but the Speaker has not permitted a vote to come to the floor due to the GOP's adherence to requiring a "majority of the majority" to approve a vote to reach the floor. If you exclude the Tea Party caucus Republicans, the majority of the majority just isn't there.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Wikipedia lists 4 instances where Speaker Boehner has broken the "Hastert Rule". Really, the "rule" is common sense for the Speaker of the House. If the Speaker wishes to keep his job, he should follow the rule. But as demonstrated in the past, Boehner is willing to break the rule to get some bills passed. Boehner is subject to two masters: the 8th district of Ohio, and the Republican Caucus. The first keeps him a Representative, and the second keeps him the speaker of the house. Keeping both pleased is necessary if he wants to continue working as Speaker.
mcherm 13y ago
But none of that has changed. All along the house has had enough votes to pass a bill exactly like this. The catch has been that the Speaker of the House has a policy (not a house rule at all) of not bringing anything up unless he knows it will get passed with no democratic votes at all. This policy is what prevents moderates from both parties from reaching some reasonable agreement.

ensignavenger 13y ago

The "problem" is that the House, the Senate, and the President (unless a veto is overcome) all have to agree- and so far, that hasn't happened. The Dems have a pretty good PR department, and are doing a good job of spinning it as though it is a problem with the (Republican led) House, though.

Mikeb85 13y ago
> The Dems have a pretty good PR department, and are doing a good job of spinning it as though it is a problem with the (Republican led) House, though. This is funny. Even funnier is that the Republicans don't realize that most of society doesn't share their values or opinions. http://www.taylormarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obama_WhiteHouseConfederateFlag.jpg http://www.taylormarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obama_...
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Your comment is extremely disingenuous. House Republicans have failed at all efforts at blocking the ACA/Obamacare, and are now attempting to play chicken against global markets in order to effect the outcome they desire. They should be dragged to a public square, tarred and feathered.
betterunix 13y ago
Nobody needs PR crew to spin it that way. Only a lunatic could have honestly believe that a president would abandon his most significant achievement since taking office. So either Boehner and the minority of Republicans he is working with are lunatics, or else they are willing to risk ravaging an already suffering economy for the sake of undoing a single law.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  Few of the Rethuglicans actually expect the President or the Dems to completely abandon ObamaCare. They would like a few concessions, perhaps merely offering a delay for a year in the individual mandate while the dust settles on the health exchanges, would have been enough. Up until a few days ago, the dems refused to even talk to the rethuglicans about it.