The Rs know better than others that for every action, there is a reaction ~ and I don't see much of anything they won't at least try ~ but this is breathtakingly brazen even for today's Rs ~  ~ Sooz

RYAN'S RADICAL RULE?.... House Republicans quietly advanced procedural budget rules last week, which would be funny if they weren't so ridiculous. But there's a second part of this that shouldn't go overlooked.

We talked the other day about Republicans' "Cutgo" rules. The policy allows the GOP to try to keep slashing taxes, without having to pay for them, while requiring spending cuts to pay for new or expanded programs.

As Paul Krugman explained this morning, "Spending increases will have to be offset, but revenue losses from tax cuts won't. Oh, and revenue increases, even if they come from the elimination of tax loopholes, won't count either: any spending increase must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere; it can't be paid for with additional taxes." The Nobel laureate labeled this "the new voodoo."

And then there's the other part of House Republicans' new budget rules.

If that sounds insane, that's because it is. Under the proposed rules, Ryan would be empowered to single-handedly establish spending levels if the House and Senate struggle to agree on a budget resolution. Just as important, Ryan's levels would be binding on the chamber, without even be subjected to a vote.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained:

In addition to inviting a crisis and almost-unavoidable government shutdown, Pat Garofalo reminds us, "The proposed change also seems to fly in the face of the GOP's promise to end backroom deals and increase transparency, as with one vote, the GOP House may yoke itself to a budget that has never been made public."

Worse, the chamber would be forced to honor mandatory spending levels, established by one crackpot lawmaker, which the rest of Congress would never have even voted on.

We're starting to see some outrage from House Democrats on this, but the fix may be in.

—[url=mailto:sbenen@washingtonmonthly.com]Steve Benen[/url] 10:15 AM December 31, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027329.php

It won't work and they'll appear to the public to be what they truly are... stupid. To give that much power to one man is beyond stupid: it's brazenly unAmerican and arguably bordering on sedition.

Sedition?  How so?

I said "arguably"...

Tell me why it's not?

You're the one claiming it's arguably bordering on sedition.  I was wondering how you arrived at that.

Well it seems appointing one man to make a decision about such a fundamental government process called the budget, without a vote or consultation with anyone - sorry - it sounds like a dictatorship your country just spent hundreds of billions of dollars to depose.

This new policy direction is going to prove so controversial in the near future that the whole government could come to a choke. To pass on to one man more power than any of the other pillars of your democracy possess, is either stupid, dangerous or seditious. Please... tell me how THAT is the "American Way"? To my mind, it is the antithesis of everything America has stood for for centuries.

There's no justification for labelling any of this "sedition."

It's not in any way instituting a dictatorship.  It's a method of streamlining the appropriations and budgetting process, for which the door was opened by the Democrats' decision to not pass the required budget resolution for FY 2011.  The rule only applies to the current fiscal year.  I wouldn't choose for such a rule to be implemented, but then I would choose for the House leadership in the previous Congress to have followed federal law by passing a budget resolution that would have set appropriation limits.  Budget resolutions have very limited rules, with spending limits in them set by the House leadership in any case.

The House over the last 4 years has come to rely almost completely on closed and special rules which prevent members from bring any but House leadership-approved amendments to the floor, shutting off debate and perverting the legislative process.  I'm hoping that Congress will return to the use of a more open legislative process.   

Enjoy your repugnant dictatorship.