I like Jonah’s column today, called “Take the Hard Votes,” in which he argues that partisan debate ought to be focused on ideas rather than procedural nonsense. Jonah homed in on Harry Reid’s practice of protecting red- and swing-state Democrats from tough votes by not allowing bills to come to the floor. As he notes, the Republicans’ so-called Hastert Rule in the House was geared toward the same objective: Bills were not brought to the floor unless they had the support of the GOP majority. The result is that, come election time, incumbents (rightly) accused of being a rubber stamp are unable to point to instances where they’ve stood up and voted against an unpopular president or party position.
There is a corollary to this practice of avoiding the hard votes – one I’ve been complaining about for a while now: Taking the hard votes fraudulently.
This is often accomplished by the cloture game Republicans have become especially skilled at in the Obama years. Desirous of credit for opposing Obama policies but fearful of actually doing anything meaningful to stop them, Senate Republicans often refrain from using what GOP leader Mitch McConnell has acknowledged is their best weapon to block the worst Democratic-majority bills: the supermajority 60-vote requirement to end debate on most legislation.
So the game works this way: Republicans cast a “yes” vote for cloture, knowing as they do so that, by ending debate, legislation they purport to oppose is now guaranteed to pass – with the final vote requiring only a simple majority, which Democrats can easily muster. Of course, at that final vote stage, Republicans turn around and vote “no,” knowing that this opposition is futile. They then go home and tell voters that they bitterly opposed Obama policies that, in reality, could not have been enacted without their collusion.
A similar tactic employed by many of the GOP’s self-styled “constitutional conservatives” is the unconstitutional process fashioned for extensions of the debt ceiling.
Republicans (who ran up astronomical debt themselves when they controlled Congress) want to pose as opponents of Obama’s even more astonishing accumulation of debt … but they do not want to do anything that might actually stop it, for fear of being blamed for government shutdowns, derailing the gravy-train, etc. They have a problem, though: Our system is designed to make them accountable. Congress is in charge of spending. Obama cannot spend a dime unless Congress approves it; and Republicans, with control of the House and a sufficiently large minority to scuttle many things under Senate rules, have the means to refuse to authorize new trillions in debt spending.
So what to do? Republican leaders designed a process that enables Obama to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. Instead of transparently voting on increases in the debt ceiling, they concocted a procedure in which Obama “proposes” debt ceiling increases; Congress can then respond with a “disapproval” resolution; Obama then vetoes the resolution; and the debt ceiling is raised – i.e., the consequent deficit spending rolls on – unless Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds supermajority (which, as Republicans know, will never happen).
This sleight-of-hand effectively, and illegitimately, transferred Congress’s constitutional spending authority to the executive. Moreover, it has enabled Republicans to rig the process so Obama’s debt ceiling increases are green-lighted while GOP lawmakers posture to voters as if they’ve opposed those increases not once but twice – by casting votes designed to be futile at the “disapproval” resolution and veto-override stages.
By all means, let’s make them take the hard votes. But let’s also make the hard votes honest.