Although both have been used in the past by Republicans while Democrat members howled about their egregious overstepping of power, those same Democrats today see no problem in using either to pass the most aggressive piece of legislation since FDR. Not unlike the Dems, the GOP is now standing up to howl at the possible unconstitutionality of their use today.
Case in point:
2010: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the idea of passing health care with a self executing rule:
2003: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer complaining about the Republicans' use of self-executing rules:The House Democratic leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, also defended the maneuver on Tuesday. “It is consistent with the rules,” Mr. Hoyer said. “It is consistent with former practice.”
When the Republican leadership reported a self-executing rule providing for the adoption of the $82 billion plan over 10 years and an almost trillion-dollar plan over 20 years, accelerating the increased child tax credit for low-income people families, we didn't even get an opportunity to vote on the bill itself except by reference in a self-executing rule. What kind of lack of confidence does that display? What kind of process in pursuit of effectiveness does that mean that we are adopting? What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in?
...We should neither excuse those past practices nor count their occurrences. No one expects every rule to be open, but we do expect that the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the exception.
(emphasis added)
Seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it? It's what is more commonly termed, "situational ethics" in modern politics as it exists today. President Bush, in attempting to lower the taxes of lower income people used this with an estimated cost of $82 billion. Louise Slaughter, current chairman of the rules committee and the person responsible for bringing it to the fore to pass this abomination, actually sued in Federal court when Bush did this. She eventually lost and it was never appealed to the SCOTUS. Another case of situational ethics.
The Congress of today is attempting to use this rule to effectively open the door to the permanent destruction of the private health care industry. And make no mistake, that is precisely what is occurring deep inside this bill. Hidden inside this travesty as well is the takeover of the higher learning system in a sense. If this bill passes, no longer will anyone be able to secure funds through a private lending institution for college. The government will effectively become the sole source for those funds. All loans will go through the federal government. Think about that for just a moment. Does federal funding ever come without strings? Does anyone believe the government will simply provide a loan with absolutely no desire to say what you can or can't learn? But I digress, rightfully so I think.
What I'm really talking about is an obscure parliamentary rule that while having been used in the past, is not appropriate in this particular case. In this instance, it's being used to provide cover for gutless politicians who are too afraid of their constituencies. They fear an open yes vote on this bill ensures a loss in November at the polls. This is essentially, passage of a law through executive fiat. Obama wants it, so he's going to get it, consequences be damned. As Marxism dictates, "The ends justifies the means." It's this precise example of the "whatever it takes" brand of politics the current administration seems intent on that will be it's ultimate downfall. The American people, while docile most of the time when it comes to our elected officials, will rise in numbers never before seen in Washington DC.
So, what exactly is this "Slaughter Rule"? This congressional trickery has a long and distinguished history. Those of you who smoke can thank this rule for not being able to smoke on airplanes anymore. Yep, it's a part of our lives, but how does it work?
Let's take a trip down hypothetical lane and we'll find out.
Let's say that I have a fairly unpopular bill I want passed but I know I don't have the votes to secure a victory. The Senate passes my bill but the House has too many linguine spined wimps to take it into the home stretch. Instead of voting on the bill as is, the house simply puts together a package of changes to the original bill and then votes on the changes, not the original bill. If the changes are voted on and it succeeds then the original bill is "deemed to have been passed". This is particularly nasty for two reasons. First, the Senate version hasn't been approved and any changes made then don't conform to what the Senate thinks it should be and secondly, no one ACTUALLY voted on the original bill so there's no real accountability to the people who vote these wimps into office.
In relatively small matters, like smoking on airplanes, I can almost see why this might be necessary with the caliber of scumbags we have in Congress these days but when you lay this cowardly procedural trick next to the largest, most comprehensive piece of legislation since the New Deal, it dives to new lows.
It's my opinion that ultimately this rule will not be employed to pass health care reform. The consequences would be devastating to the Democrat party and leave them out of power for many years to come. House Dems know this and won't commit the "assisted political suicide" that Obama seems to be asking of them. This will be done on a simple up or down vote on the Senate bill and those voting for it will be held accountable to their constituencies come November.
