Ramesh Ponnuru makes a point that I’ve been thinking of since the weekend, which is – what difference does it make if the dems use the Slaughter rule to pass the bill in terms of the political response? I mean, they don’t want to vote for the actual bill because it’s politically toxic, so they’re going to vote for the unpopular bill that’s politically toxic to pass under an unprecedented abuse-of-power rape-the-constitution style parliamentary trick?
Any House Democrat who votes for the rule that allows the Senate bill to be deemed passed will be voting for the Senate bill. A foreseeable consequence of that vote is that the Senate bill may become law while some of the fixes the House votes for do not. It is entirely fair for Republican opponents of any House Democrat who votes for the Slaughter rule to tie him to the Senate bill. Republicans will be able to say, fairly, that such a House Democrat has voted for the Senate bill—kickbacks and all—and tried to hide the fact. Republicans may as well point out now that that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
AAAAGH. Welcome to my nightmare, people. So many unprincipled people in one place with power to make a decision that will clearly have detrimental effects on my future.
And yes, I realize that the point has nothing to do with politicians acting rationally, it’s all about setting up a permanent left-leaning welfare state constituency, gaining power by any means necessary, etc etc…
Insty Sez: TRICKS ONLY WORK IF THE MARKS DON’T NOTICE
“We are not governing here today, we are greasing the skids for an abuse of a budget procedure intended to control the size of government, not expand it.”
Meh. Who cares.
RIP Peter Graves, dead at 83.