House passes budget deal, Senate expected to act soon - The Washington Post

 

Congress on Wednesday moved a step closer to clearing a bipartisan budget deal that would boost spending for domestic and defense programs over two years while suspending the debt limit into 2017.

The House passed the bill on a 266 to 167 vote late Wednesday and Senate leaders have promised to quickly move it through the upper chamber.

The agreement would essentially end the often contentious budget battles between congressional Republicans and President Obama by pushing the next round of fiscal decision making past the 2016 election when there will be a new Congress and White House occupant.

House Republican leaders unveiled the proposal earlier this week and immediately faced challenges from conservatives upset over both the secretive negotiations that led to the agreement as well as the policies contained in the bill.

Some of this discontent was dealt with after a change was made to the bill late Tuesday night to ensure that the full cost of the $80 billion in new discretionary spending was offset by an equal amount of mandatory spending cuts and increased revenue.

Some Republicans raised concerns  earlier Tuesday that the bill fell about $4 billion short of this goal, but the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday reported that the changes to the legislation had closed this gap.

Senior Republicans came forward ahead of the vote to support the legislation and encourage others to join them. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said the bill would benefit the military and prevent the threat of another shutdown.

“It stops the cuts in defense, it increases the money going to our troops and it prevents them from being used as a bargaining chip in the future,” Thornberry said. “I think that is the sort of stability and predictability they need and that they deserve.”

Still, many House Republicans remained opposed to the deal and only 79 voted in favor of the deal while 187  Democrats supported the bill on the floor.

The agreement would lift the so-called sequester spending caps to increase discretionary spending by about $80 billion over two years, an amount that would be split equally among defense and domestic programs. To offset this cost, negotiators tapped a number of sources, including by making changes to Medicare and Social Security, auctioning off spectrum controlled by the government, selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and tightening tax rules for business partnerships.

In addition, the legislation would limit a historic premium increase for Medicare Part B beneficiaries set to go into effect next year for services like hospital care and doctor visits. The agreement also would prevent a potential 20 percent across-the-board cut to Social Security Disability Insurance benefits that is also set to take place next year, by transferring some funding from the main Social Security fund and making changes to the program. These cost-saving changes include allowing some recipients who can still work to receive partial payments while earning outside income and expanding a program requiring a second medical expert to weigh in on whether an applicant is truly disabled.

Senate leaders want to move the bill quickly — the Treasury Department estimates the deadline for raising the debt ceiling is Nov. 3 — and a tax bill that already passed the House is being used as the vehicle for the agreement in order to speed up the procedural process in the upper chamber.

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he plans to filibuster the bill, but his chances of slowing down passage are limited.

The agreement will have to clear one procedural hurdle with at least 60 votes before it can be approved by a simple majority. At most Paul could briefly delay the final vote by refusing to allow leaders to cut off debate before the maximum 30 hours allowed under Senate rules have expired.

The final Senate vote could come as early as this week.

Attempts to do away with two of the thorniest problems facing the House GOP — setting spending levels and raising the debt ceiling — come as Republicans on Wednesday nominated Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to replace John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is resigning from Congress this week, as speaker of the House.

House passes budget deal, Senate expected to act soon - The Washington Post

Ryan meets with tea-party hard-liners as he moves closer to speaker decision - The Washington Post

 

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) moved closer to becoming House speaker Tuesday, answering a flurry of calls from fellow Republicans who see him as the best hope to unite his party’s warring factions on Capitol Hill.

“If Paul Ryan can’t unite us, no one can. Who else is out there?” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), a moderate. “That’d be a sign of utter dysfunction, total madness.”

After days of deliberation, Ryan neared a decision on whether he was willing to serve as House speaker, associates said. Three years after Mitt Romney chose him as the GOP’s vice presidential nominee, Ryan once again finds himself being urged to lead his party amid mass unrest in its ranks.

Ryan met Tuesday evening with tea party hard-liners and later with the larger group of House Republicans. His allies said they expected him to make clear that he will move to formally seek the speaker’s gavel only if he has the nearly unanimous support of his GOP colleagues, arguing that a speaker who starts with uncertain political capital would face a constant threat of intraparty reprisals.

Ryan, 45, is expected to continue meeting Wednesday with House Republicans to explore his reluctant candidacy for speaker, evaluating whether the groundswell of enthusiasm that has greeted him in recent weeks can be sustained over the long haul.

Here are the top 5 House speaker choices

Fix managing editor Aaron Blake runs down the top five contenders for House Speaker John Boehner's job now and says why they might—or might not - be the one to win. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

At the top of Ryan’s list of demands, his associates said, is a desire to lead the House GOP as its spokesman and agenda setter without the threat of revolt from the right, halting a dynamic that has dominated the tumultuous speakership of John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who announced last month that he would leave Congress at the end of October. Another aim would be to delegate some of the job’s travel and fundraising demands so that Ryan could spend enough time with his wife and school-age children.

“My only caution is that he should go very slow and make sure that the whole conference is coming to him,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R). “Don’t underestimate the degree of getting chewed up. We are not like the Democrats right now. They are relatively cohesive. . . . We are a movement in enormous ferment, with enormous anger and enormous impatience.”

Looming over Ryan’s deliberations is a churning frustration among Republicans nationally about the party’s ability to oppose President Obama and a presidential primary field led by anti-establishment outsiders who have made common cause with the House GOP’s right flank.

Those conservative House members have pushed for a suite of rules changes, ranging from an overhaul of the party’s internal steering committee to a more open process for considering legislation. Ryan, they say, would not be exempt from those demands, which, if adopted, could give the new speaker less control.

Ryan’s allies say his conditions for becoming speaker are likely to include an understanding that he would have a free hand to lead without a constant fear of mutinous reprisals.

Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said Ryan wants House conservatives to make clear that they would not seek to “cripple him” from the start.

“He doesn’t have a moral obligation to get Republicans out of the rubble they’ve created for themselves,” Wehner said. “Asking for their goodwill is completely reasonable.”

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is being tapped to become the next speaker of the House, even though he doesn't seem to want the job. Who is this guy? (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Wehner added that Ryan envisions his possible speakership as one that would be buoyed by his own political capital and shaped by an aggressive Republican policy agenda, rather than one consumed by catering to the whims of tea party back-benchers: “He’s got a vision for the party that he can articulate. He knows policy, philosophy, and where the party should go intellectually.”

But Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a member of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus who has expressed measured support for Ryan as speaker, said Ryan could not expect to unify Republicans without making some procedural concessions.

“The displeasure with the way the House has been managed since 2011 is pervasive and crosses all sorts of philosophical boundaries within the party,” Mulvaney said. “The appetite for a new way of doing business is real, and whoever wants to be the speaker is going to have to speak to that.”

Most GOP lawmakers have hailed Ryan as the only candidate who could unite a House Republican majority deeply divided over how to best wield its power, but Ryan’s conservative bona fides have also been called into question on conservative talk radio and Web sites and in town-hall meetings.

Among his purported apostasies are support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program during the 2008 economic crisis, brokering a spending deal with Democrats in 2013 and — most crucially — being a leading Republican proponent of immigration reform packages that would give illegal immigrants a path to legal status.

“There are people who have sort of bought the narrative that the speaker’s race is about trying to get someone who is more conservative, and for those folks Paul is not acceptable,” Mulvaney said. “But there are other folks who believe, and this is what I’ve been telling them, that it’s not about people, it’s about process.”

A new poll released Monday by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal showed strong support for Ryan among Republican primary voters, with 63 percent “comfortable and positive” about Ryan taking over the post. Twenty-eight percent said they would feel “skeptical and uncertain” if he became speaker.

Should Ryan decide not to seek the post, it would set off a free-for-all that has already attracted roughly a dozen potential candidates who have expressed interest in running if Ryan does not.

They range from powerful committee chairmen such Homeland Security’s Michael McCaul and Agriculture’s K. Michael Conaway, both of Texas, to Darrell Issa (Calif.), the high-profile former Oversight Committee chairman, to up-and-comers such as Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), who has played a lead role in the GOP’s recent fight against Planned Parenthood.

But many Republicans believe — or at least hope — that melee will be avoided as Ryan has shifted from being averse to being inclined to succeed Boehner. The change is largely a result of a wave of encouragement and lobbying from officials and influential conservatives, as well as a sense of duty to his embattled party.

House Republicans convened Tuesday in the Capitol basement for a conference meeting focused on their “October agenda.” They will meet again Wednesday morning.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a conservative who is backing long-shot speaker candidate Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), sighed Monday when he heard about the previously unscheduled Tuesday session and said it signaled that the leadership was ready to get behind one of their own.

Ryan meets with tea-party hard-liners as he moves closer to speaker decision - The Washington Post

Understanding John Boehner, reluctant ringleader of GOP shutdown politics - CSMonitor.com

 

With just 10 days before the federal government runs out of money, GOP hardliners are threatening the second widespread government shutdown in two years, this time over federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

They’re also considering a rare maneuver to oust Mr. Boehner from the speaker’s chair. It’s not the first time they’ve plotted to get rid of him.

Yet Boehner – “the coolest cucumber I know,” as one of his colleagues puts it – has been calmly exploring the options as the GOP leadership holds more than a half dozen “listening” sessions with members of the divided caucus. He still hasn’t found a funding solution that will satisfy everyone. He might not be able to. But pushing and prodding in his own unperturbed way, he won't stop trying.

“What Boehner does is, he’s very patient. He lets things play out for a while. He doesn’t get mad…. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn’t,” says John Feehery, former spokesman for Denny Hastert, the longest serving Republican speaker.

It’s the tactics – not the ideology – that separate the speaker from his right flank. In 2013, when tea partyers forced a 16-day partial government shutdown over Obamacare, Boehner was as opposed to the Affordable Care Act as they were.

But he repeatedly warned against a shutdown. Failing to persuade, he eventually joined in, leading the way on several measures to delay or defund the president’s signature domestic program. On Day 16, after having exhausted all his options, he gave up the fight – and received a standing ovation from his caucus, hardliners included, for his efforts.

As he explained to the former late-night television host Jay Leno last year, “You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk.”

This time, Boehner is again in lockstep with the right flank on the substance of the issue. Videos showing officials of Planned Parenthood, a women’s health provider, discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts for scientific research are “gruesome,” he has said, and the federal government should stop funding the group.

Yet neither he nor Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky want to shut down the government over it. Trying to defund Planned Parenthood with a Democratic president in the White House is an “exercise in futility,” as Senator McConnell put it.

At a closed-door GOP caucus meeting last week, the House leadership shared internal polling that showed that two-thirds of respondents in 18 GOP swing districts oppose shutting the government to try to stop funding Planned Parenthood, according to Politico. In 2013, the GOP’s approval ratings plummeted in the wake of the shutdown.

That doesn’t mean much to Rep. John Fleming (R) of Louisiana, who belongs to the House Freedom Caucus, a group of more than 40 hardliners formed this year to challenge the GOP leadership. Congressman Fleming says he’s one of 31 members who have pledged not to vote for legislation – be it a short-term or long-term budget – that funds Planned Parenthood. “That’s my conscience vote.”

And so the speaker has been patiently rolling out other options – investigations of Planned Parenthood in the House, legislation to freeze funding for the organization, and an abortion-related bill. Both bills passed the GOP-controlled House on Friday, but will be blocked by Senate Democrats.

And that’s where another leadership proposal comes in. In order to actually get a defunding bill to the president’s desk, they’ve proposed using a legislative process known as “budget reconciliation” that only needs a majority vote to pass. It would get to the president all right, but he would veto it.

Hardliners say they aren’t interested in this “show vote.” Instead they seem determined to press for the shutdown, and try to put the blame on the president.

As the speaker cycles through his options and the calendar clicks closer to a shutdown, some of his allies are getting frustrated with the repeated clashes. There was another one earlier this year over immigration and funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Boehner supporter Rep. Devin Nunes (R) of California calls the hardliners “right-wing Marxists” who use extreme tactics to promote themselves – and then offer no realistic, alternative plans. The speaker, he says with exasperation, “let’s these guys get away with everything.”

Take the case of Rep. Mark Meadows (R) of North Carolina, who in July filed a rare motion to “vacate the chair” and call a new election for the speakership. Such a move hasn’t been tried in 105 years – and it didn’t succeed then.

The speaker could have killed off the Meadows resolution in the Rules Committee, which the speaker controls – but he didn’t. He could have brought it immediately to the floor for a vote he would have won, and stamped out the spark before it caught fire – as some of his allies urged. He didn’t.

"He chose not to press his advantage and divide his caucus," said Rep. Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma.

In July, Boehner called the Meadows move “no big deal,” but right-wingers are talking about returning to it after the pope’s visit this week. It is unlikely to succeed but nothing is certain.

Intraparty division is not new in Congress, says former House historian Ray Smock. He recalls the civil rights era, when both parties had deeply divided caucuses. But this is different, he says, because of the uncompromising wing of Boehner’s party.

“I think Boehner is seriously trying to run the House the way it’s supposed to be run, but this has been a losing proposition for him since the advent of the tea party,” says Mr. Smock. “You’ve got an awful lot of members in that caucus that don’t really care that government functions well. They’re elected as antigovernment people.”

Which raises the question: What’s the point of patience with recalcitrants?

Mr. Feehery says the free rein Boehner gave the tea partyers during the last shutdown could have been meant as a learning experience for them – but it simply emboldened them. Now it’s time for the speaker to make an example of a few people “and just kick them out of the conference.”

But then, Feehery admits, right-wing media would have a field day with that, and so would the “antiestablishment” presidential candidates.

And that’s not the Boehner way. “Members get not just second and third chances, they get repeated chances to operate as members of the team,” says Congressman Cole, a Boehner ally.

One thing’s certain: Democrats will not agree to defund Planned Parenthood. Boehner knows that. Eventually, he’ll have to work with Democrats to pass a “clean” funding bill that leaves the women’s health care provider alone.

What happens between now and then, though, is anybody’s guess.

Understanding John Boehner, reluctant ringleader of GOP shutdown politics - CSMonitor.com

Facebook Hoax Claims Children Of Congress Members Don't Pay Back College Loans

 

Myths and untruths are passed around on Facebook every now and then, but it's still a surprise when thousands of people at a time fall for unverified statements posted by random users.

One of the latest cases of a questionable Facebook post going viral is a photo with a with a lengthy caption that claims Congress members' children do not have to pay back their college student loans.

Uploaded on Jan. 2 by a user who goes by the moniker "Actof Courage" (sic), the photo has more than 75,000 Likes and more than 280,000 shares on the social network.

Below the photo, Actof Courage claims that "the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it."

The post goes on to propose a 28th Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

A similar claim was posted -- and debunked -- on Facebook in 2011.

Politifact gave the claim a "Pants on Fire" rating on Jan. 7, 2011, after receiving a chain email about the alleged loan forgiveness. The fact-checking group contacted the U.S. Department of Education, which responded thus: "There are no provisions under Title IV (federal student aid programs) that provide loan forgiveness for Members of Congress or their families or staff (beyond what any other borrower would be eligible for)."

The Annenenbreg Public Policy Center also did a similar analysis of the claim in 2011 and rated it "Not true."

"Some congressional employees are eligible to have up to $60,000 of student loans repaid after several years — just like other federal workers. But that’s not the case for members of Congress or their families," the Center wrote.

Will Facebook users ever tire of sharing posts with friends before independently researching theories or outrageous claims? Not this month.

Facebook Hoax Claims Children Of Congress Members Don't Pay Back College Loans

Ex-House Speaker Hastert charged with evading currency rules and lying to FBI

Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has been indicted on federal charges alleging he agreed to pay $3.5 million in apparent hush money to a longtime acquaintance blackmailing him, then lied to the FBI when asked about suspicious cash withdrawals from several banks, federal prosecutors said.   The stunning indictment of the longtime Republican powerhouse alleged he gave about $1.7 million in cash to the acquaintance, identified only as Individual A in the charges, to “compensate for and conceal (Hastert’s) prior misconduct” against Individual A that had occurred years earlier. Hastert, a former high school teacher, served eight years as House speaker and has been working as a lobbyist in Washington since stepping down from office in 2008.   Hastert, 73, of Plano, was charged with one count each of structuring currency transactions to evade Currency Transaction Reports and making a false statement to the FBI, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He will be arraigned later at U.S. District Court in downtown Chicago. 8 According to the seven-page indictment, Hastert withdrew a total of $1.7 million in cash from various bank accounts between 2010 and 2014 to give to Individual A. In December, Hastert began structuring the cash withdrawals in increments less than $10,000 to evade bank reporting requirements, the indictment said. When questioned by the FBI about the withdrawals, Hastert lied and said the cash was for his own use, according to the charges. “Yeah, I kept the cash. That’s what I’m doing,” the indictment quoted Hastert as telling agents.   Hastert was not charged with any counts specifically alleging blackmail or extortion of Individual A, and further details of the alleged misconduct against Individual A were not provided in the indictment. Read more by clicking on the following:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-dennis-hastert-20150528-story.html

Here is the actual legal indictment:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-dennis-hastert-indictment-pdf-20150528-htmlstory.html

Here is an older story about Mr. Hastert’s retiring perks:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-use-this-hastert-0218-20100217-story.html#page=1

A history of close business dealings between Rep. Aaron Schock and campaign donors

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock has built much of his personal wealth over a decade through real estate investments with political donors, an Associated Press review found.

The Peoria Republican’s relationships with other contributors, which afforded him flights on private planes and other expenses, already are under scrutiny.

Donors built, financed and later purchased a house Schock owned as an investment in Dunlap. Schock owns a stake in a Peoria apartment complex involving other contributors. And he pushed for a federal appropriation that might have benefited a donor’s development project, an AP review found.

Schock, a 33-year-old rising star named last year to a mid-level leadership role in the House, has disclosed personal wealth in a range centered on $1.4 million. He’s made precocious business acumen a part of his appeal since joining Congress in 2009, sometimes calling himself a real estate developer.

Financial reports indicate Schock may have more than doubled his wealth since he was elected to Congress, although it is impossible to determine his gains precisely because values of his assets and liabilities are only reported in wide ranges.

Amid ethics complaints concerning his taxpayer-funded expenses and flights aboard donors’ aircraft, Schock’s business entanglements with contributors in several projects raise questions about the overlap between his personal finances and their political interests. Politicians can do business deals with donors as long as the terms are commercially reasonable.

Schock declined through a spokesman to discuss his finances with the AP. But he told the Journal Star on Friday evening that his investments are part of his business history going back for a decade and a half.

“I began working at a very early age, opening my IRA at 14, started investing in real estate at age 18 and continue to do so today,” he said. “Furthermore, when running for public office, my family, friends and business associates who know me best are naturally some of my best supporters.”

He’s previously also told the paper that his real estate investments were above board.

A watchdog group has called for an ethics investigation amid revelations he used congressional money to redesign his office in the style of the TV show “Downton Abbey.” He also billed taxpayers or his campaigns tens of thousands of dollars in private air travel on donors’ planes. His office said he repaid some of those charges and is reviewing others.

Schock’s business career began early and helped to feed a real estate career that began in his late teens. He started doing online trading and database management in middle school and later worked as a ticket agent for a licensed broker called VIP Tours.

Read the entire story:  http://www.pjstar.com/article/20150313/NEWS/150319628/11669/NEWS/?Start=1

Texas judge's immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge - Yahoo News

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration faces a difficult and possibly lengthy legal battle to overturn a Texas court ruling that blocked his landmark immigration overhaul, since the judge based his decision on an obscure and unsettled area of administrative law, lawyers said.

In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen avoided diving into sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head-on. Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.

The failure to do so, Hanen wrote, was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing.

The ruling, however narrow, marked an initial victory for 26 states that brought the case alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay without threat of deportation.

"It's a very procedural point – that he did this too quickly," said Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hanen's ruling left in disarray U.S. policy toward the roughly 11 million people in the country illegally. Obama said on Tuesday he disagreed with the ruling and expected his administration to prevail in the courts.

The U.S. Justice Department was preparing an appeal of Hanen's temporary injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Obama said. The court could consider an emergency request to block Hanen's ruling, potentially within days, although most of the 23 judges on the court were appointed by Republican presidents.

There was no consensus among lawyers with expertise in administrative law and immigration law on whether Hanen would be reversed on appeal. But they said the judge was wise to focus on an area of administrative law where legal precedent is sometimes fuzzy.

In the near term, the narrow approach allowed Hanen to issue a temporary injunction barring federal agencies from putting Obama's plans into place. An appointee of President George W. Bush, Hanen had previously criticized U.S. immigration enforcement as too lax.

BRAKE ON PRESIDENTIAL ACTION

Hanen's ruling turned on the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement that a proposed rule or regulation appear in the Federal Register so people have a chance to comment. The Federal Register is a daily journal of U.S. government proceedings.

The "notice and comment" requirement acts as a brake on all presidents, slowing their plans by months or years.

The requirement, though, does not apply to "interpretative rules" or general statements of policy, an exception that Justice Department lawyers said applied to Obama's announcement in November. Rules that must be submitted for notice and comment are sometimes known as "legislative rules."

For Hanen, the pivotal question became whether the new rules, such as granting work permits to potentially millions of illegal immigrants, was binding on federal agents or merely general guidance. He ruled that they were binding, and that Obama should have allowed for notice and comment.

Lawyers with expertise in administrative law said there was little guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on what qualifies as a rule that needs to be published, leaving disagreement among lower courts and a grey area for Hanen to work in.

"The case law as to what qualifies as a legislative rule is remarkably unclear," said Anne Joseph O'Connell, a University of California Berkeley law professor.

LENGTHY PROCESS LOOMS

O'Connell said it was hard to predict how the appeals court would rule in the end, although she thought it was likely the court would lift Hanen's temporary injunction and allow the Obama administration to begin putting its program in place.

The subject is not strictly partisan, she said, because sometimes a liberal interest group might favor a strict requirement for notice and comment.

An appeal before the 5th Circuit could take months, as lawyers file written briefs and the court holds oral argument and comes to a decision.

The appeals court could also consider other questions, such as whether the states that brought the lawsuit had what is known as standing to sue or whether Obama violated the clause of the U.S. Constitution that requires presidents to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

There is no chance Obama would begin the notice-and-comment period now, because U.S. immigration policy would be frozen in place during the lengthy process, said Peter Margulies, an immigration expert at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island.

He said it could delay Obama's policy for "a minimum of six to eight months, and potentially much longer."

Texas judge's immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge - Yahoo News

Frustrated Republicans taste limits of majority control - Yahoo News

By ERICA WERNER 6 hours ago

….They're all bad options from the GOP perspective. A short-term extension just pushes the problem to a later date. Removing the immigration language would amount to a bitter admission of defeat after Republicans have spent months accusing Obama of an unconstitutional power grab for limiting deportations for millions in the U.S. illegally and making them eligible for work permits. That's left Republicans staring down the third possibility: a shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.

It's something most say they want to avoid, but on Thursday House Speaker John Boehner refused to rule the possibility out, insisting instead that Senate Democrats should get the blame if it happens.

"If funding for Homeland Security lapses, Washington Democrats are going to bear the responsibility," the Ohio Republican said. "The House has done its job. We've spoken. And now it's up to the Senate to do their job."

Some House conservatives go further, arguing that a shutdown would hardly be calamitous because the large majority of department personnel would be deemed essential and report to work, though most would not get paid until after the shutdown ends.

"Look at the last shutdown — 85 to 90 percent of the personnel from DHS all came to work, and they all got paid" eventually, said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz. "As much as both sides don't want that to happen, it is always a possibility."

The last shutdown happened in the fall of 2013 over a failed GOP attempt to uproot Obama's health care law. Republicans got blamed for that one, and some fear they would pay the political price if there's another one, too.

The dispute will resume when lawmakers return to the Capitol Feb. 23 with just a few days left before the funding deadline expires. GOP leaders have announced that the Senate will start the week by taking its fourth procedural vote on the House-passed funding bill. Democrats blocked all three previous attempts to open debate on the measure, and the outcome is unlikely to be any different the fourth time around.

The Capitol Hill drama is unfolding as the Obama administration moves forward unchecked in implementing the new immigration programs. Wednesday will bring the first major opportunity to sign up, when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services begins accepting applications from those eligible for an expanded program granting work permits and deportation deferrals to immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as kids. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus held a press conference Friday to encourage immigrants to enroll regardless of the political opposition, with members saying that will only make it harder for divided Republicans to undo the program.

"We're going to sign 'em up by the hundreds of thousands," predicted Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. "The more people that are in the program, the harder it is to turn back the clock on justice."

Frustrated Republicans taste limits of majority control - Yahoo News

Republican-controlled Congress to vote to repeal NLRB rule - Yahoo News

 

Congressional Republicans launched a drive Monday to repeal a recent National Labor Relations Board rule updating procedures for union representation elections, setting up a likely veto showdown with President Barack Obama.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said the GOP will employ a little-used law that permits the Senate to reject some federal agency regulations by majority vote and denies opponents the ability to thwart action through a filibuster.

Alexander said that by shortening the time between a union's request for representation and the actual balloting, the NLRB had cleared the way for a new type of "ambush election" to take place that will disadvantage businesses and workers alike.

In remarks on the Senate floor, he said that under previous rules, 95 percent of union elections take place in 56 days or less from the filing of a petition. He said that under the new proposal, that would be reduced to as few as 11 days, which he said could be before an employer understands what's happening.

In a written statement, NLRB chairman Mark G. Pearce countered that "both businesses and workers deserve a process that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays, which is exactly what this rule strives to accomplish."

Mirroring divisions in Congress, NLRB rule-making is often politically charged, with Republicans taking the side of business while Democrats are aligned with unions. In the case of the rule approved in December, the labor board split 3-2 along party lines.

The rule, which has been cheered by organized labor, eliminates a previous 25-day waiting period and seeks to reduce litigation that can be used to stall elections. It also requires employers to furnish union organizers with email addresses and phone numbers of workers.

The NLRB rule is scheduled to take effect in April.

Alexander's announcement was fresh evidence of the Republicans' determination to use the power won in last fall's elections, when they captured a Senate majority and strengthened their grip on the House. Obama has already threatened to veto 11 bills.

Alexander said the vote to overturn the union election rule would take place under the Congressional Review Act, which limits debate and bars any changes in the repeal proposal. Obama may veto the measure, however, and it takes the customary two-thirds vote in each house of Congress to override him.

The law being used to target the labor rule has been used successfully only once. That was in 2001, when President George W. Bush signed legislation passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, canceling an ergonomics rule that had been issued by the Labor Department near the end of the Clinton administration.

Republican-controlled Congress to vote to repeal NLRB rule - Yahoo News

Netanyahu considering changes to Congress speech after criticism - Yahoo News

 

Netanyahu is due to address a joint session of Congress about Iran's nuclear programme on March 3, just two weeks before Israeli elections, following an invitation from John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the house.

Boehner's invitation has caused consternation in both Israel and the United States, largely because it is seen as Netanyahu, a hawk on Iran, working with the Republicans to thumb their noses at President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.

It is also seen as putting Netanyahu's political links to the Republicans ahead of Israel's nation-to-nation ties with the United States, its strongest and most important ally, while serving as a pre-election campaign booster.

As a result, Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time TV address, so as to drain some of the intensity from the event, a source said.

Another option is for the prime minister to make his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington the same week, rather than in Congress.

"The issue has been under discussion for a week," said a source close to the prime minister's office. "(Netanyahu) is discussing it with Likud people. Some say he should give up on the speech, others that he should go through with it."

Read the entire story by clicking on the following:  Netanyahu considering changes to Congress speech after criticism - Yahoo News

Israeli official suggests Boehner misled Netanyahu on Congress speech - Yahoo News

 

By Dan Williams

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats.

Netanyahu was invited by the Republican speaker of the house, John Boehner, to address Congress on March 3, an invitation Boehner originally described as bipartisan.

The move angered the White House, which is upset about the event coming two weeks before Israeli elections and that Netanyahu, who has a testy relationship with Democratic President Barack Obama, is expected to be critical of U.S. policy on Iran.

"It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides," Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.

The interviewer asked if that meant Netanyahu had been "misled" into believing Boehner's invitation was bipartisan, a characterization Hanegbi did not contest.

Asked whether the prime minister should cancel or postpone the speech, Hanegbi said: "What would the outcome be then? The outcome would be that we forsake an arena in which there is a going to be a very dramatic decision (on Iran)."

The invitation has led to criticism of Boehner by Democrats and repeated statements by Boehner and other Republicans explaining their position.

Top Democratic lawmaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday the event was "politicized" and she hoped it would not take place - piling pressure on Netanyahu after the White House said it would not meet him during the visit.

In addition, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as president of the Senate, would usually be present for a joint session of Congress but he is expected to be traveling abroad when Netanyahu is scheduled to speak, an aide to Biden said on Friday.

Netanyahu has denied seeking electoral gains or meddling in internal U.S. affairs with the speech, in which he is expected to warn world powers against agreeing to anything short of a total rollback of Iran's nuclear program.

A Netanyahu spokesman declined to comment on Hanegbi's comments on Friday. Hanegbi is a senior member of Netanyahu's Likud party

Israeli official suggests Boehner misled Netanyahu on Congress speech - Yahoo News

Lee Hamilton: Can we have a regular Congress? | The Rock River Times

By Lee H. Hamilton

You probably didn’t notice, but the Senate passed a milestone a couple of weeks back. Before 2015 was a month old, senators had already had a chance to vote up or down on more amendments than they did in all of 2014.

This is a promising sign that new Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, might have meant it when he declared last year that he wants the Senate to return to the “regular order” of debate and amendments. For the last few weeks, a favorite inside-the-Beltway guessing game has been whether he’d be willing to stick with it in the face of demands, sure to come, to reduce debate and amendments and expedite approval of bills.

I know you’re thinking this is just inside baseball. Let me explain why it matters. In Washington, the line between process and policy is blurred. The policies Congress produces are forged by the process it uses, and the leaders of the two houses have great power over that process — and hence over the results. Talking about how Congress makes laws is the same as talking about what it does in those laws.

So, a return to the “regular order,” on either or both sides of the Capitol, has enormous implications. There is no single solution to Congress’s problems, but it’s hard to imagine Congress can get past its dysfunction without adopting the regular order.

If you’re uncertain what I mean, you’re not alone. There are a lot of lawmakers who have very little idea what it entails, either; because they were elected after Congress abandoned it in the 1990s.

At its simplest, the regular order is what you learned in school. A member introduces a bill, which is referred to committee. The committee hears from experts, looks at its options, considers amendments, and then reports the bill to the floor, where there’s more debate and deliberation. The other body goes through the same process, and the separate bills they produce get reconciled in a conference committee, where the members also talk to the president’s representatives about what he’ll want to see to approve the measure. Finally, the president approves or rejects the bill. The process, though never perfect, is relatively open, fair to all members, and promotes accountability.

Over the last few decades, however, Congress has adopted an alternative approach: the mega-bill. These bills usually run to hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. They bypass the committees and get drafted in the offices of the leadership. They limit amendments to a few, if any. They limit debate. They constrict — if not eliminate — thoughtful consideration and largely dispense with votes, except for an up-or-down vote on the entire mega-bill. They invite all kinds of last-minute and under-the-table deals. They shut ordinary members out of the process, undermine participation, shield Congress from public scrutiny, and are, in short, an outrage to democracy. Yet, they’ve become a habit on Capitol Hill.

Why? They’re convenient and concentrate power in the hands of the leadership.

At a very basic level, I’ve never understood why they’ve had such staying power. The regular order holds clear advantages for the majority of legislators. It’s more open, produces more accountability, and gives ordinary members a sense they’ve had a fair shot at influencing the course of national policy. This is no minor consideration. When the process works well, it produces better-quality legislation and pride in the institution, because members know they’re taking part in fair procedures. When members take pride in the work being done around them, they communicate that sense to their constituents.

But reliance on mega-bills has imposed a great cost on Washington. Federal agencies cannot plan ahead. Government operations get disrupted. Uncertainty abounds. Back-room deals flourish. Secrecy pervades the process from beginning to end. Public confidence in government erodes. Members themselves feel shunted to the sidelines.

It is hard to get voters focused on congressional process when they’re so focused on particular issues — how a candidate feels about climate change or abortion. But the plain truth is that the regular order enhances the chance that legislation that truly represents what’s best for Americans will emerge from Capitol Hill. Maybe one day Congress will come to believe this, too.

Lee Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Above is from:  Lee Hamilton: Can we have a regular Congress? | The Rock River Times

Boehner's Blunder | Commonweal Magazine

Why the Invitation of Netanyahu to Congress Is Wrong

February 3, 2015 - 3:45pm

The bitter partisan politics of the past six years in Washington has made governing almost impossible, delayed economic recovery, and alienated the American people. This has damaged President Barack Obama’s standing with voters, but it has tarnished Congress even more. Partisanship has, of course, long played a role in debates about U.S. foreign policy. More often than not, however, Congress and the executive branch have forged a united front on fundamental questions regarding U.S. interests abroad.

Nowhere has this emphasis on bipartisanship been more evident than in U.S. support for Israel. Given the dangers Israel faces and the intensity of the feelings it arouses, turning the U.S.-Israel relationship into a partisan issue would be bad both for the Jewish state and for American politics. Yet that is the rash step House Speaker John Boehner has taken by inviting Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress next month, and doing so without consulting the president or congressional Democrats. Netanyahu reportedly will speak in opposition to Obama’s ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Iran that would prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon. Obama has responded to the Boehner-Netanyahu gambit by making it known that he will not meet with Netanyahu during his visit to Washington. The U.S.-Israel relationship seems to have taken a perilous turn. 

Netanyahu faces an election of his own next month, and this stunt may be calculated to burnish his waning popularity at home. But it could make a different impression on the American public. Americans usually do not take kindly to being lectured to, by either friends or foes, about the nation’s obligations abroad. Even some of Netanyahu’s longtime supporters have urged him not to go through with the speech.

Whatever political advantage Boehner hoped to gain by this unprecedented violation of diplomatic protocol, his decision is likely to backfire. Israel has long enjoyed unflinching support from congressional Democrats, but they will not sit by quietly as Boehner attempts to turn Israel into a wedge issue designed to make Democrats look weak on national security. Iran has been brought to the negotiating table because of the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the international coalition organized by President Obama. But any negotiation entails some degree of give and take. In an effort at confidence building toward a final settlement, the United States and its partners entered into an interim agreement with Iran in 2013. That deal—opposed by hardliners on both sides—lifted some sanctions. In return, Iran has curtailed its production of highly enriched uranium as well as its use and manufacture of centrifuges. Work on its nuclear reactor at Arak has also been suspended. In addition, Iran agreed to strict inspections of its facilities. A final agreement will not be easy to reach, but an escalation of hostilities at this time would be a serious mistake.

The interim agreement expires near the end of March, but could be extended until June. Netanyahu wants Congress to impose stronger sanctions should no final agreement be reached next month. Obama and the coalition partners have said that tougher sanctions now would sabotage negotiations, allowing the Iranians to claim the West is bent on confrontation. Any move to increase sanctions would also fracture the international coalition, making it nearly impossible to sustain economic pressure on Iran. Consequently, Obama has promised to veto such a bill.

Before Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu, many congressional Democrats were lining up behind stiffer sanctions. That support has now dissipated, giving an unexpected victory to the president. Cooler heads may yet prevail.

It is reported that Netanyahu, who did not disguise his support for Mitt Romney in 2012, has “written off” Obama. Shunning the president of the United States, however, will only further isolate Israel, which is already facing broad condemnation for its wars in Gaza and illegal settlements in the West Bank. As the Middle East sinks deeper into chaos, it makes no sense for Netanyahu to meddle in American politics, and in so doing undermine the bipartisan support Israel has long enjoyed.

Boehner and Netanyahu are flirting with another danger. Younger Americans, including younger American Jews, while supportive of Israel, are critical of its expansionist policies and its treatment of the Palestinians. They also strongly support the current president. These Americans have come of age during a time when Israel has been a powerful military and political force, not a vulnerable land of refugees threatened with extinction. Their support for Israel is genuine but not unconditional. When confronting Israel’s enemies, Netanyahu may have good reason to set the niceties of diplomacy aside. But it is a mistake for him to bully his friends. If he cannot tell the difference between his friends and his enemies, Israel is in greater danger than he imagines.

Boehner's Blunder | Commonweal Magazine

Congress refuses to fix immigration laws | The Rock River Times

 

By Sara Dady
Immigration Attorney, Dady & Hoffmann LLC

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a contradictory maze of requirements, exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. The federal courts find that the INA is second only to the U.S. tax code in its complexity. Attorney John Elwood, who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said “prolonged exposure” to the INA “can actually cause your brain to melt.”

Immigration to the U.S. is a mess because our laws do not do what we need them to do and do not work as intended. Enforcing a bad law will not make the law better or more effective.

Immigrating lawfully to the U.S. is typically a two-step process. The first step is to have a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident (green card holder) family member or employer file a petition for an immigrant. Family and employment visas in all categories, except for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, are capped. This means there is often a wait of many years, sometimes more than 20 years, before a visa number is available and an applicant can actually apply for a green card. Once a visa number is available, the applicant is not guaranteed a green card. If the applicant has immigration violations, such as multiple entries without inspection to the U.S., unlawful presence in the U.S. for more than one year or certain criminal records, then they are ineligible for a green card for 10 years or forever. For the majority of undocumented people living and working in the U.S., they did not have a lawful way to immigrate in the first place. There was never a line for them to get in, and there still isn’t. Worker visas (which are not green cards) are also capped and have stringent requirements on employers. The bureaucracy and cost of applying for agricultural visas is so burdensome that often the season for which the farmer needed the workers is over before any visas are processed. The U.S. demands migrant farmworkers and other low-skilled workers come to the U.S., but does not provide a way for workers to do so lawfully. Instead, U.S. policy is to spend time and money on the back end to deport undocumented workers, which only hurts employers, families and communities.

The U.S. only has the resources to put 400,000 people in deportation proceedings per year. The immigration courts are so backlogged that it is common for deportations to take more than four years. Increased deportations do nothing to solve the underlying problem, which is our immigration laws do not — in any way — regulate immigration in a fair or orderly way.

As the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform bill expired in the House this winter, President Barack Obama took executive action to offer temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to a small number of the 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S. Parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders who have been living in the U.S. for the last five years, who have not been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors or one significant misdemeanor (for example, a DUI or domestic battery) and who have not been ordered deported in the last year, can apply for this protection. Of course, this protection only lasts three years, is not any kind of real legal status, does not forgive any violations of law and does not lead to a green card. It is not a replacement for sensible immigration reform — something that can only come from Congress.

Instead of working on fixing this broken system, Congress appears only interested in continuing to punish people for not getting in a line that they were never allowed to join in the first place. Congress is so upset about the president’s action to alleviate some of the suffering caused by this infernal system that it refuses to work on overhauling our immigration laws (which would pre-empt any of the president’s actions). Clearly, Congress has a bad case of brain melt with no cure in sight.

Sara Dady is an immigration attorney with Dady & Hoffman LLC, 401 E. State St., second floor, Rockford, IL 61104. Her office can be reached at (815) 394-1359 or online at www.dadyhoffmann.com.

These articles are translated by Armando Tello. Armando works for SWITS, a regional translating service, and he also works as a freelance translator. He is from Guatemala, and speaks English, Spanish, German and is learning Italian. He had a small software service in Guatemala, and he is proud to say he is a “computer geek.” Armando may be contacted at the following email address: ckat609@yahoo.com.

From the Jan. 21-27, 2015, issue

Congress refuses to fix immigration laws | The Rock River Times

House Speaker Boehner acknowledges 'stumbles' - Yahoo News

 

Speaker John Boehner said on Tuesday, as legislative initiatives have been derailed by attacks from inside the party.

 

"There have been a couple of stumbles," Boehner told reporters after meeting in a closed session with his rank-and-file.

The latest Republican casualty was a border security bill aimed at demonstrating a tough law-and-order approach toward stopping illegal immigration, mostly along the southern border with Mexico.

The bill had been scheduled for House debate on Wednesday but was canceled due to a massive East Coast snow storm, according to a Republican leadership announcement on Monday.

But conservatives were bucking the bill, claiming it would do nothing to deport undocumented immigrants who manage to get over the border, leading some to wonder whether the votes existed among Republicans to win passage.

"A growing body of people are sick and tired of the 'trust me we'll do it later' approach," said Republican Representative Matthew Salmon of Arizona, "and want us to deal with both interior enforcement and border security at the same time."

The legislation could resurface in coming weeks, however.

One week ago, Boehner suffered a setback over an abortion bill that had been scheduled for House action. That time, it was more moderate Republicans, including some female lawmakers, who objected to the bill's provisions on abortions for victims of rape.

From the first day of the new Congress on Jan. 6, Boehner's conservative wing was restive, with 25 of them refusing to back his election to a third term as Speaker and resulting in a narrow victory for the nation's top-elected Republican.

On Tuesday, Boehner explained the legislative setbacks as an effort to get off to a fast start. It was, he said, "all in our effort to show the American people that we are here to listen to their priorities."

Republican Representative Pete Sessions, who chairs the powerful House Rules Committee that is controlled by Boehner, told reporters that leadership is taking a breather on the border security bill to give members more time to understand how immigration issues will be tackled this year.

The bill, Sessions added, "was well understood until it got confusing."

(Reporting By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama

House Speaker Boehner acknowledges 'stumbles' - Yahoo News

House GOP abruptly drops plans to debate abortion bill - Yahoo News

 

In an embarrassing setback, House Republicans abruptly decided Wednesday to drop planned debate of a bill criminalizing virtually all late-term abortions after objections from GOP women and other lawmakers left them short of votes.

The decision came on the eve of the annual March for Life, when thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators stream to Washington to mark the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. It also came with GOP leaders eager to show unity and an ability by the new Republican-led Congress to govern efficiently.

Despite a White House veto threat, Republican leaders had planned on Thursday House passage of the legislation, which would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

But they ran into objections from women and other Republican lawmakers unhappy that the measure limited exemptions for victims of rape or incest to only those who had previously reported those incidents to authorities.

The rebellious lawmakers argued that that would put unfair pressure on women who often feel shame or fear retaliation if they report those assaults.

In a complication GOP leaders were not able to resolve, they then ran into objections from anti-abortion groups and lawmakers when they discussed eliminating the reporting requirements.

View gallery

House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said leaders made the decision after meeting "really, all day" with rank-and-file lawmakers.

Congressional Democrats who solidly oppose the legislation, along with abortion rights advocates, all but mocked the GOP's problem. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Republicans suffered "a meltdown."

Read more by clicking on the following:  House GOP abruptly drops plans to debate abortion bill - Yahoo News

GOP divided over using budget process on health care law - Yahoo News

 

At issue is an arcane process known as budget reconciliation. It's the only filibuster-proof option available to Republicans, who control the Senate with 54 seats but must still muster 60 votes to pass other legislation.

Senate precedents limit the number of reconciliation bills — one for taxes, one for spending and one to raise the government's borrowing cap — and so a major debate has begun among Republicans over what to put in it.

Hard-line conservatives want to use the process to force a showdown with Obama over the law.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told a Heritage Foundation gathering of conservatives last week that Republicans should "use every procedural tool available, including reconciliation, to repeal Obamacare with 51 votes in the Senate."

That's a view shared by conservative groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund and Heritage Action, and prominent voices on the right like Erick Erickson, publisher of the Redstate.com conservative blog.

"It's time to stop pussy-footing around with excuses and half-assed attempts at partial repeal, and get serious," Erickson wrote last week. "Make Obama veto the repeal of his signature legislation."

Pragmatic voices in the GOP, however, say the certainty of an Obama veto effectively means that Republicans would be wasting the opportunity given them under special budget rules that limit debate and can guarantee delivery of legislation to Obama.

"I'd like to get tax reform done. I think we could do infrastructure in that process. And I think that's something that could actually get enacted," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Senate Commerce committee. "I mean we're going to have a lot of Obamacare votes one way or the other."

A reconciliation measure can only advance after the House and Senate have agreed upon a measure called a budget resolution, which sets broad parameters for spending, revenues and curbs to benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Democrats used reconciliation to help pass Obama's health care plan. And Bill Clinton and Republicans controlling Congress used it in 1997 to advance a balanced budget bill. Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich in 1995, tried to use it to pass a bitterly partisan 1995 balanced budget plan Clinton vetoed. Even though their budget resolution is likely to project a balanced federal ledger over the coming 10 years, Republicans are signaling they're not willing to do a party-line replay of their 1995 experience.

"The only way to do entitlement eligibility changes is on a bipartisan basis," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday at a news conference at a GOP issues retreat in Hershey, Pa. "We do not intend to be offering unilateral, one party-only entitlement eligibility changes."

Republicans devoted a session at the retreat to the topic of reconciliation. A decision on what to do with it appears a ways off.

"At some point we'll decide if we're going to have reconciliation and if we do, we'll make some decision much later on," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters last week.

The view of some pragmatists is that reconciliation should be used to get a result that might get signed into law or as leverage to make Obama more uncomfortable than he would be in vetoing an Obamacare repeal measure. And some lawmakers think that an upcoming Supreme Court ruling could unravel much of the law, making them wary of wasting reconciliation on the health care law.

"It should be things like that that actually improve the long-term fiscal stability of the country and maybe provide us some revenues for things where we can agree, like infrastructure," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

A telling episode last fall illustrates the passion over the issue.

McConnell told Fox News that repealing Obama's health care plan would "take 60 votes in the Senate .... and it would take a presidential signature." This sparked a mini-eruption on the right that prompted McConnell's office to release a statement promising to use budget reconciliation to repeal the law.

GOP divided over using budget process on health care law - Yahoo News

Tax Justice Blog

 

January 7, 2015 11:24 AM
By Richard Phillips, Research Analyst at CTJ | Permalink |

The new budgetary mantra of the House GOP appears to be: if you can't make the math add up, change the rules of math.

On Tuesday the House did exactly that with its passage of a new rule requiring the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to use "dynamic scoring" rather than static scores for official cost estimates on proposed tax changes. Dynamic scoring is a controversial method of assessing the effect of tax cuts. It allows lawmakers to claim that a tax reform proposal is revenue neutral, even if it would lose revenue under a conventional score.

Read more...

Tax Justice Blog

The risks of the new dynamic scoring rule - The Washington Post

 

ON ITS face, there is nothing particularly mischievous about the budget accounting rule that the House of Representatives adopted last week. It simply calls for the two nonpartisan bodies that keep score on fiscal matters, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, to “incorporate the macroeconomic effects” of “major” tax or mandatory spending legislation when they develop official cost estimates: That is, analysts are supposed to factor in the wider impact on growth, employment and inflation and how that might feed back to make the budget deficit larger or smaller.

The rule covers bills that affect at least 0.25 percent or more of the economy and then only “to the extent practicable.” According to the Republican majority that adopted the rule, this is simply to ensure that Congress has the best information when it acts — and it’s only common sense to suggest that the budgetary impact of a tax cut, say, must account for whatever additional growth that tax cut might create.

Well, yes and no. It would be strange, indeed, to oppose a methodological change that promised to give Congress, and taxpayers, more precise policy-impact information. Already, the CBO and JCT take account of micro-economic effects, such as the reduction in fuel consumption that might come from a gas tax hike. Yet a more aggressive “dynamic scoring” of tax cuts has been a longtime GOP desideratum, supposedly because existing methodology understates the cuts’ growth-enhancing magic; the GOP would also like to have the CBO’s imprimatur on its view that repealing Obamacare is pro-growth. Therefore, it would be strange if the GOP-backed rule change did not at least partly reflect Republican ideology, as Democrats loudly charged last week.

The rule’s practical impact may be small, limited to a few pet GOP bills that will be vetoed by President Obama anyway. But there would be reason to worry about “dynamic scoring” if it were to become the dominant method, even if it were done in good faith — without the cherry-picking of which the Democrats preemptively accuse the Republicans. The U.S. economy is so complex, and the assumptions that must be built into any model of its workings so inherently subject to educated guesswork, that it’s not clear that dynamic scoring actually would add precision to imprecise budget estimates. Conversely, to the extent analysts try to be cautious in their assumptions, the more they would simply replicate existing procedures.

So the risks that the new rule will enable fiscally irresponsible tax cuts are high in relation to the prospects that it will actually enhance information quality.

Much will depend on how the new CBO director, working with that agency’s professional staff, implements it. All the more reason for the Republican majority in Congress to choose that official wisely and to treat the appointment as an opportunity to show that the GOP is, as its leaders emphasized in the first week of the new session, dedicated to governance, not partisanship.

The risks of the new dynamic scoring rule - The Washington Post

A look back at Obama’s vetoes so far

The White House said Tuesday that President Obama would veto a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline on the grounds that the legislation would interfere with the "well-established" executive process for reviewing the pipeline. If he has occasion to carry out his threat, the veto would be only the third of his presidency, as Democrats in Congress have been able to block bills he has opposed until now. That is fewer than any other president in the 20th century. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower each vetoed bills in the triple digits.

At the end of his first year in office, Congress passed a temporary funding measure for the Pentagon along with a regular appropriations bill. Obama signed the regular bill, making the stopgap unnecessary, so he vetoed it.

He killed a second bill the following year, this one dealing with mortgages. The proposal would have required states to recognize notarizations of documents from other states. After Congress passed the bill without fanfare, several major banks were accused of forging documents in order to foreclose on homeowners more easily. Advocates for consumers persuaded the White House that the legislation would have made it easier for banks to evade rules designed to protect borrowers.

Unlike interstate notarizations and defense stopgaps, the Keystone XL pipeline is widely popular, so this would be Obama's first veto involving any political risk. But it probably wouldn't be his last, either.