Democrats grab more power in Congress
In yet another unprecedented move by this government, Democrats have shut out the minority party from offering any floor amendments on spending legislation.
While this, on its surface, might not seem like a big deal, it is. The power of the purse is at the very core of our democracy and is the basis for our even having a legislature. By telling the minority party that they have no voice in how this country pays its bills…we’ve taken one giant leap towards one-party rule.
Here’s a great explanation from a comment in the linked post as to what’s going on:
In parliamentary proceedings, such as congress it is typical that both sides share their arguments for or against the proposed bill and introduce amendments to the bill. The benefit of parliamentary proceedings is they ensure that the minority view is heard. What has happened here is that the majority temporarily changed the procedural rules from blocking the Republican minority from voicing their concern or offering their changes to the bill. Instead of even allowing amendments to be proposed (which the Democrats could overrule with their majority) they are fearful of going on the record opposing common sense changes to the legislation so they change the rules to shut out the opposition and avoid the inconvenience of having to answer to their constituencies for opposing sensible legislation. This is extremely rare behavior in the house (in both Democrat and Republican majorities) and, unfortunately, this behavior is also showing up in state congresses across the country including NY and NC.
More from Rep. Cantor:
Category: Government
Loading ...
Sounds like the Democrats fear some Republican amendments may actually pass.
The Democratic majority must shut out Republican alternatives if they are to continue to paint the GOP as the “party of no.” The sad part is that they are shutting out some ideas that may be good ones, in exchange for political gain. This is why the American people must vote them out of power next year.
And.. I’m just curious, what makes this any different from 2000 – 2006 with Republican controlled Legislative and Executive branches? Turn about is fair play gentlemen.
I’m not saying it’s right, cause it’s not, but I understand.
If the GOP wants to turn this around they’ll quit complaining about what Obama’s saying or not saying (because that crap is petty), and instead use the public forum to introduce new ideas. Where’s the broad defense of the tax payer? Where’s the emphatic-to-the-point-of-boring itemization investigation into the TARP and other bailout measures? There are things the GOP could be doing right now, today, without even being on the floor of Congress, and could start to turn things around for them.
And speaking as someone who actually likes the idea of having more than one party in power at a time… please get on with it.
Shane,
Thats just it, the Republicans are putting out positions and ideas. The problem is that those ideas are not getting the kind of public airing that they deserve.
Also, it seems to me that the Democratic minority had a powerful dissenting voice and used it quite often. Hence why they were able to kill social security reform.
Shane,
I can’t recall anytime that the GOP did not allow the Democrats to offer amendments on spending bills and I challenge you to prove your point with facts. Regardless, your point about offering up alternatives is the right one…and those alternatives are all over the place. Just because we’re not writing about it here doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
This seems like the kind of behavior you complain about when the other side engages in it. I don’t know about spending bills in particular, but a Roll Call article from May 2007 (!) says the Dems shut out Repub amendments 43% of the time compared to 32% by the Repubs when they had the majority. I’m having a hard time working up much outrage here.
Brian: You’re spot on here. In a legislative body, the majority makes the rules. The minority holds a press conference and raises a stink. If you have a united majority, limiting the minority amendments is just a way to keep from wasting time by voting them down one by one. In the General Assembly, both Democratic House Speaker Tom Moss and his Republican succesor Vance Wilkins had designated delegates that they would call on to “call the pending question” to end debate when it began to drag on and on. That motion nearly always carried.
J.R. @ June 17 10:19 a.m.
Here is an excellent article from the Boston Globe regarding how the House ran under the GOP:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=full
No clean hands, here. Some of the bills discussed in this article were appropriations bills.
Is it right? IMHO, a healthy democracy would find a way for legitimate amendments to be introduced and debated, while excluding those interposed to make a rhetorical or political point of to waste time. People smarter than me, however, have not figured out how to do that, and probably never will as long as people on both sides of the aisle continue act in bad faith, but that’s politics, I guess.
But I’m not sure how the GOP can complain about poor treatment in light of stuff like this from when they were in charge:
“The … episode is emblematic of the way business is conducted in the 108th Congress, where a Republican leadership has sidelined legislation unwanted by the Bush administration, even when a majority of the House seemed ready to approve it, according to lawmakers, lobbyists, and an analysis of House activities.”