SOP: Congressional Hypocrisy

Norm Ornstein, the congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says succinctly what must be said (and what others on Swampland have been saying): Hypocrisy is a well established parliamentary procedure in America.

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?

No. But there are pundits (and news outlets) that don’t mind parroting misinformation to satisfy the cravings of ideologically aligned audiences. And Norm, my apologies for reposting your entire blog post. It was just too good to edit. To read more of Ornstein’s work, click here.

Related Topics: hypocrisy, norman ornstein, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • jcapan

    “But there are pundits (and news outlets) that don’t mind parroting misinformation to satisfy the cravings of ideologically aligned audiences.”

    Time/CNN/their punditry aren’t?

  • Professor

    Well said Mr. Ornstein. Thanks for posting MS.

  • jcapan

    Oh, speaking of Time Warner’s pedigreed journos:

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/best-political-team-on-television.html

  • square1

    There are good and bad reasons for the self-executing rule.

    But if ever it could be defended, it is in this case. Now the point is not to avoid embarrassing votes on legislation that will become effective, but to avoid being erroneously slandered as having voted for provisions (e.g. the Cornhusker Kickback) that the legislators oppose and will never become law.

  • anon76

    Whenever I think of ‘The Best political team on television’, I like to think of what Andy Richter did to Blitzer on Jeopardy. Late Night comedians in this country actually are more qualified to give the news than our pundit class, and that’s not a good thing.

  • kristiia

    Thank you, Michael, for posting his entire blog.

    It is so unbelievably frustrating to hear supposed straight news reporters and anchors parrot such clear BS repeatedly because Republicans are using it as their current line of attack or they are just completely ignorant or misinformed.

    Reporters/News Anchors’ job is to NOT be ignorant and misinformed and infect the rest of the population – it’s like a malicious virus of stupid which is impossible to quarantine to just FNC or Talk Radio.

    My other favorite call out was by Chait on Mike Allen/Politico and Reconciliation:

    “Jesus Christ, Mike Allen, Reconciliation Is NOT THAT COMPLICATED

    Jonathan Chait
    March 7, 2010 | 11:37 am

    There are a lot of thorny issues in American politics that require a great deal of concentrated attention to grasp. The controversy over budget reconciliation and health care is not one of them. It’s pretty simple, and can be explained in thirty seconds or so. And yet large chunks of the political class seem unable to grasp it.

    Before we turn to the principal subject of my latest condescending lecture on this topic, let’s briefly review the situation here. Last year, some Democrats considered passing health care reform through budget reconciliation, which would only need a Senate majority. Other Democrats objected, arguing that, since reconciliation bills can only change taxes or spending, it would be very hard to pass a whole health care bill this way. All the features related to regulating insurance companies and setting up exchanges would be stricken out, and the result, as Kent Conrad put it, “would look like Swiss cheese.” So Democrats pursued health care reform through the regular process, passing slightly different bills through the House and Senate.

    Since a bill can’t become a law until the exact same bill passes through each chamber of Congress, and Democrats now lack the ability to break a Republican filibuster, they have a different plan. They’ll pass the Senate bill through the House. Then, to appease House members who disapprove of certain Senate features, they’ll pass a second bill through reconciliation. This will only address budgetary issues — some taxes will be raised, others lowered, some spending will be rejiggered. In the grand scheme of things, the changes in the reconciliation bill will be minor. As National Review’s Rich Lowry has noted, “Only the House vote matters.”

    Still with me? Okay. Last weekend, Conrad appeared on Face the Nation to explain this process:

    -snip-
    When I read the op-ed, I figured it had to be totally redundant. What sentient being who’s following this closely could not understand it by now? I give you Politico’s Mike Allen, writing Saturday:

    ‘When Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made this confusing argument last week on “Face the Nation,” we weren’t sure he was being deliberately disingenuous. It was, in fact, spin. Now, he’s made the same case in a similarly obtuse WashPost op-ed, “Reconciliation is not an option for health-care reform.” Don’t misread it: It’s an Alice-in-Wonderland argument FOR the use of reconciliation as part of the recipe for getting comprehensive health reform to the president’s desk’

    Confusing? Obtuse? Does Conrad need to stop by Politico’s offices with a picture book and some finger puppets? I understand perfectly well how intelligent people who don’t follow this debate closely might not catch on to the distinction. But this is what Mike Allen does all day — and, as I understand it, much of the night and the wee hours of the morning as well. How can anybody still not understand this? I’m at a loss here. Look, there’s an endless list of topics I don’t understand at all. I went through an entire semester of pre-Calculus in high school and was never able to understand what a function is. I still don’t. It’s a complicated subject and I was a lazy student. But this reconciliation distinction is easy, and Mike Allen is (legendarily) not lazy. So, what the hell is going on here?”

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/jesus-christ-mike-allen-reconciliation-not-complicated

  • Professor

    Bravo kristiia!

  • sasquatch08

    “But if ever it could be defended, it is in this case. Now the point is not to avoid embarrassing votes on legislation that will become effective, but to avoid being erroneously slandered as having voted for provisions (e.g. the Cornhusker Kickback) that the legislators oppose and will never become law.”

    I am not so sure on about that. I don’t think Americans are that disinterested in this topic. Personally I think a lot of people would feel that this legislation was “back doored” into law. I don’t have any idea how many. The simple fact is that nothing this large or sweeping has been “self executed” before. Which is a rule that many people have never heard of before this particular discussion, and hence does raise the ire of voters who see it as something new.

    Personally, I think any use of “self executing” rules by either party is disgusting. I was against it when Republicans used it in 2005 and 2006. It shows a lack of courage and therefore character. If you can’t convince enough people to vote on a particular bill to pass it on it’s own merit, it should die and either be rewritten so it can pass, or be buried and forgotten.

  • nathan7777

    If you can’t convince enough people to vote on a particular bill to pass it on it’s own merit, it should die and either be rewritten so it can pass, or be buried and forgotten.
    .
    You can get plenty of people to vote on the bill. And the bill will be voted on. Using the self-executing rule is voting on the bill by proxy. If the Senate bill was sent to the House with all the fixes already include it would pass, on it’s own merit. But those fixes aren’t included, hence why no one wants to vote on the bill without the fixes. So they are using the self executing rule to do one big vote on the Senate bill and its fixes all at once.
    .
    Now that you know this, do you still have a problem with it?

  • apr2563

    MS Thank You. Kristia Thank You.

  • gysgt213

    “But there are pundits (and news outlets) that don’t mind parroting misinformation to satisfy the cravings of ideologically aligned audiences.”
    .
    Deliberately parroting misinformation sounds pretty tame but it’s really telling lies.
    .
    Whatever happen to credibility? Why would any news outlet or pundit risk their credibility like this? What’s in it for them?
    .
    Is there not a difference between presenting news or views from an idelogically aligned point of view and deliberately not telling your listeners, readers or viewers the truth?

  • freeinpa

    Democrats were apoplectic over using this for a $40 billion bill. Now with a straight face want to claim using this for a $1.2 trillion bill that will overtake one-fifth of economy and possibly bankrupt this country is equivalent!

    Self-executing will have an additional meaning for Democrats in November.

  • jeriv

    Oh dear lord, freeinpa, stop trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

    It’s will now have been used by both parties (if HCR passes), and it never has been an issue. It will be an issue for the very small minority (tiny, tiny, tiny) of people who are hardcore politics fans. But for the other 99% of the population? It won’t mean squat.

    Both camps say the same stuff regarding election day: “This is the straw that broke the camel’s back”, and even more hyperbolic stuff like “The blood will flow in November”. If there are losses by either party, it will NOT be because of procedural items.

    Self-executing rules, use of reconciliation, etc, will mean squat.

    Now, passing the healthcare bill, or not passing it, THAT will have lasting impact.

  • freeinpa

    Yes $1.2 trillion is a mole hill to liberals.

    Th eproblem is that mole hill will grow into a mountain as Obama and the Dems continue to lie about the plan.

    See below the statement from Kaiser Family Foundation who have been fans of HC reform:
    =.

    “There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. “There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today.”
    ==
    Higher deficits, higher taxes less HC services yes quite a mole hill and another examples of liberals skipping out on responsibility. I wonder how they will blame Bush for this?

  • grape_crush

    It is so unbelievably frustrating to hear supposed straight news reporters and anchors parrot such clear BS repeatedly because Republicans are using it as their current line of attack or they are just completely ignorant or misinformed.
    .
    Absolutely correct…I’d also like to add “or smugly hubristic about their own intellect” if I may.
    .
    I continue to have the misfortune of reading and seeing examples of lazy reporting; weak research, over-reliance on sources and on what passes for conventional wisdom.

  • crdvis16

    freeinpa;

    The quote you just referenced isn’t very controversial. I don’t think anyone believes that overall HC premiums are going to start going down. The goal is to “bend the cost curve”; meaning, make HC premiums go up less fast. That quote, if anything, supports the idea that the Dem’s insurance reform bill will do just that.

  • anon76

    To further clarify for freeinpa: If the prices go up less fast, that actually saves people money relative to doing nothing (though does not bring cost near what it *should* be relative to the rest of the developed world).

blog comments powered by Disqus