The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Three days into the shutdown that has paralyzed the federal government, it’s become apparent that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) could end the standoff at any moment he chooses. The Huffington Post reports that as of Wednesday afternoon,  20 House Republicans are willing to pass a “clean” continuing resolution that would fund the government at sequester levels, without any Obamacare-related demands attached. This is three more than the 17 Republicans who would need to join Democrats to pass the Senate’s budget bill.

Republican representative Jon Runyan of New Jersey expressed what others like him are now feeling: “Enough is enough. Put a clean [continuing resolution] on the floor and let’s get on with the business we were sent to do.”

Despite now having the votes, however, Speaker Boehner has refused to bring a bill to the floor, citing the so-called “Hastert Rule.”

Under the Hastert Rule, a House Speaker should not allow a vote on any legislation that is not supported by a majority of the majority party, which is the Speaker’s caucus.

The rule is named after former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who said that relying on the other party for the majority of votes was “something I would not generally do,” during a 2006 press conference.

Boehner has waived the rule in the past, but most recently he has used it to justify not bringing a new bill to the floor. He might have to reconsider his stance, though, because Hastert is now saying that the “Hastert Rule is kind of a misnomer,” and nothing more.

On Wednesday, Hastert explained to The Daily Beast that when he made the 2006 comments, he was “speaking philosophically” and that it “wasn’t a rule.”

The former Speaker then explained that “the real Hastert Rule is 218,” referring to the number of votes needed in the House for a bill to pass. He then continued: “if we had to work with Democrats, we did.”

Although Hastert did not say whether or not Boehner should waive the Hastert Rule and admitted that he and the current Speaker do not talk, he did offer some insight that Boehner might find handy: “We had to find a way to compromise and get things done. I wasn’t a show horse; I wasn’t on TV programs.”

“You can’t be in Congress and shut down the government and get anything done. It’s an oxymoron,” Hastert added.

Photo: ASIS International via Flickr.com

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}