Amash should push for the "Hastert" rule to come back into effect

[Agorism]

The dems keeping passing bills with minority GOP support.

The Hastert rule would prevent this stuff.

[FSP-Rebel]

I agree
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/17/hastert_rule_no_more_house_gop_considering_surrend er_on_fiscal_issues.html

As I've been emphasizing for a while, the key to standoffs between the Obama administration and the House of Representatives is the party cartel dynamic unleashed by the Hastert Rule. But the deal that resolved the fiscal cliff ultimately involved breaking the Hastert Rule. So did the bill to fund relief efforts for Hurricane Sandy. And there are no indications this week that sporadic ditching of the Hastert Rule may become the key survival strategy for House Republicans on fiscal issues. In essence, they'll throw in the towel and beat a tactical retreat.

The way the Hastert Rule (which, as Sarah Binder writes, was de facto in effect before Hastert gave it a name) works is that for a bill to be brought to the House floor it must be supported by a "majority of the majority." That means that for the White House to strike a deal, it can't bargain with the median House member (a Republican who might conceivably lose his seat to a Democratic challenger) and then bring liberal members along for the ride. It has to strike a deal with the median member of the House GOP caucus (a Republican whose only chance of losing is from a right-wing primary challenger), which is extremely difficult. But of course there's no need to actually enforce the Hastert Rule if the majority of the caucus doesn't want it enforced. Ashley Parker refers to the "Vote No / Hope Yes" caucus within the GOP—members who wanted a Sandy relief bill to pass (so Republicans wouldn't take blame for blocking it) but also didn't want to vote for it (so they wouldn't be vulnerable to charges of ideological impurity). If the Vote No / Hope Yes caucus is large enough, then it's possible for Republicans to let Democrats pass crisis averting legislation—a debt ceiling increase, an extension of appropriations bills—with just a tiny bit of GOP cover or GOP "present" votes.

[FSP-Rebel]

I agree
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/17/hastert_rule_no_more_house_gop_considering_surrend er_on_fiscal_issues.html

As I've been emphasizing for a while, the key to standoffs between the Obama administration and the House of Representatives is the party cartel dynamic unleashed by the Hastert Rule. But the deal that resolved the fiscal cliff ultimately involved breaking the Hastert Rule. So did the bill to fund relief efforts for Hurricane Sandy. And there are no indications this week that sporadic ditching of the Hastert Rule may become the key survival strategy for House Republicans on fiscal issues. In essence, they'll throw in the towel and beat a tactical retreat.

The way the Hastert Rule (which, as Sarah Binder writes, was de facto in effect before Hastert gave it a name) works is that for a bill to be brought to the House floor it must be supported by a "majority of the majority." That means that for the White House to strike a deal, it can't bargain with the median House member (a Republican who might conceivably lose his seat to a Democratic challenger) and then bring liberal members along for the ride. It has to strike a deal with the median member of the House GOP caucus (a Republican whose only chance of losing is from a right-wing primary challenger), which is extremely difficult. But of course there's no need to actually enforce the Hastert Rule if the majority of the caucus doesn't want it enforced. Ashley Parker refers to the "Vote No / Hope Yes" caucus within the GOP—members who wanted a Sandy relief bill to pass (so Republicans wouldn't take blame for blocking it) but also didn't want to vote for it (so they wouldn't be vulnerable to charges of ideological impurity). If the Vote No / Hope Yes caucus is large enough, then it's possible for Republicans to let Democrats pass crisis averting legislation—a debt ceiling increase, an extension of appropriations bills—with just a tiny bit of GOP cover or GOP "present" votes.