Well, we made it almost a month after an election before progressive groups began focusing entirely on attacking Democrats and trying to divide the caucus, lol.
This week, CREDO Action has launched a petition asking activists to attack Nancy Pelosi’s proposed House rules changes, specifically those dealing with spending and deficit rules, but also the changes having to do with creating a mechanism for popular legislation to make it to the floor for debate and consideration.
CREDO and others have argued that the rules changes will “kneecap” the progressive agenda, and they insinuate that this is all part of some shady scheme to offer Republicans veto power over the agenda.
I rebut this argument, and suggest that these rules changes are sound strategy on Pelosi’s part, and that they will help the progressive agenda in the long run. She is returning the chamber to sanity and regular order, while making promises to the American people that will help ensure a permanent Dem majority in the House. She is protecting and preserving the gains we worked so hard to achieve.
But there are sound arguments on both sides for each controversial change, and they deserve discussion.
PAYGO
What this is: Nancy Pelosi is looking at reinstitution a pay-as-you-go policy that requires Congress to identify revenue streams for new programs, particularly entitlements.
CREDO’s position: PAYGO holds the agenda hostage to Republican deficit hysteria.
My rebuttal: The major examples of PAYGO policy being waived is when Republicans waived it to pass massive tax cuts, both in 2002 and last year, which exploded the deficit, crippled the budget and prevented any new programs from being passed. We have to break this cycle, because it’s the cycle itself that is standing in the way of progressive gains, not the PAYGO policy itself.
This can’t be overstated — PAYGO helps our side FAR more than it hinders us. Without PAYGO, Republican have — for forty years — consistently passed massive tax cuts that they are not required to be honest about financing. Every damn time they say that growth will negate the need for spending cuts, and every damn time this turns out to be false. Voters end up with prospective cuts to Social Security or Medicare once they are knee-deep in debt. If Republicans had to put those cuts on the table with their tax proposals, we wouldn’t get into this mess over and over...voters would stop them if they knew the real costs of these policies.
And yes, I am aware that Republicans abuse the system by ignoring PAYGO rules when it benefits them to do so. My solution would be to strengthen the rules, not to toss them out of the window. Let’s not forget that some of these draconian budget rules actually helped us in 2017/2018, and were what blocked the GOP from running completely rampant.
And PAYGO doesn’t actually prevent new legislation from passing — Congress just needs to identify how they’re going to pay for it, and if they want to deficit finance it they need 60% support to do so. Yes, that can be a heavy lift. And you know what? Transforming our nation should be a heavy lift. I’m a Democrat in part because the current GOP plan is to radically change things and assume everything will work out. That’s idiotic. I expect our legislators to hone their proposals so that we have a really clear idea of what they will cost, and how we will pay for that, and I want voters to get to make decisions based on solid information.
I’m a liberal with a minor in economics. I’m not scared of deficits, and while I can only do like 2% of the math to prove why, at one time I had to do 100% of that math for my final project, ha. (Calculus just really doesn't stay in the brain if it’s not used on a consistent basis.) But my deficit tolerance has limits...if we start spending with annual deficits creeping up and over 6% of GDP, then we are crossing a line where we are asking to reap benefits today in a manner that cripples future generations. Republicans exaggerate and lie on this, and behave like hypocrites, but there is still a point where deficits are bad.
As a millennial, I’m going to admit that I have a bit of a grudge against boomers. They’ve demanded decades and decades of historically low tax rates, but they want all of the programs and benefits of a progressive liberal democracy. If we want to build a renewable energy grid with low-loss transmission lines, then I’m all for deficit spending...we will reap economic benefits for a century from such an investment. But the idea that my generation should still be paying off the boomer’s retirement care in 2067 is not something that I’m completely open to. I support single payer — but I want our nation to pay for it as we use it, not decades from now.
Overall, I don’t think PAYGO is a particularly bad idea. The principle is that a constituency asking for a benefit needs to pay for them, rather than reap benefits and kick the can down the road. If something is so important that it deserves deficit financing, then we just need supermajority support. That’s a fair deal to me.
Tax increase rules
What this is: Nancy Pelosi is considering a rule that would require a 60% vote to pass any new taxes on income earners in the bottom 80%.
CREDO’s position: They suggest that this offers Republicans control of Democratic budget policy.
My rebuttal: As with PAYGO, I actually see this as more beneficial to the progressive agenda than it is harmful.
The American middle class has been gutted and hollowed out. Middle class Americans don’t feel they can afford tax increases...and until we figure out how to raise wages across the economy, they’re right. Voters have entrusted Democrats with the House, but that mandate didn’t come with broad consensus that we should pass programs that require middle class tax hikes.
This proposed rules change is a powerful way in which Speaker Pelosi is reinforcing a Democratic contract with middle class voters. It’s a way of establishing that the party gets it, of saying, “look, we know you’re hurting, and we are not going to raise your taxes without your consent, and a broad consensus that it’s what we as a nation want to do.”
OMG, Speaker Pelosi wants to operate under the concept of consent of the governed. She wants representatives to represent us. Nooooooooooooo….
Sarcasm aside, I think this rule is a brilliant piece of political strategy, and one that will serve the progressive agenda really well. We are setting into stone the definitive proof that we are not, as the other side claims, “tax and spend liberals.” We are putting our money where our mouths are. We are showing voters that, yes, we will tax them...but only when they agree to those taxes and want the programs they pay for.
Sure, those principles are going to make it a bit harder to pass big programs. But let’s consider the lessons of Obamacare — forcing a program onto a population that isn’t yet on board has consequences. I thank god every day for the ACA, and I’m glad we got it through. But I sure wish it hadn’t opened the door for eight years of Republican control, and to the alt-right and tea party, and to the devastating policies that came after.
When we get to things like single payer, we are living in a fantasy world if we think we are going to pass such a program without 60% House support, and 60% Senate support, and we probably also need 60% popular support for a specific bill with fully outlined provisions. So let’s stop looking for easy answers. We need for progressive groups to stop whining about how hard it is to get those high levels of support (or blithely claiming we already have it), and we need them to start actually working with voters to build that support.
Overall, I see this rules change as an important promise to the middle class. I think we get waaaaay more out of promising not to levy them with massive tax increases than we lose by needing 60% to pass hikes. This is the sort of strategy that will help us overcome structural challenges within the electoral system, and to maintain a long-term House majority. We are not going to pass single payer tomorrow — it could take years. It could take decades. So let’s put into place the rules that will enable us to grow our power base, and work toward the day where a Democratic president signs something like single payer into law. There are no shortcuts.
Floor debate and amendment rule changes
What this is: Speaker Pelosi is considering some rules about how legislation is brought to the floor for debate. These rules offer mechanisms for laws and amendments to be considered even if leadership doesn’t want to debate them. Notable aspect of the rules changes include that bills with 290 cosponsors can’t get held up in committee as easily, and if a proposed amendment has 20 cosponsors from each party, then it gets introduced on the floor.
CREDO’s position: We are living in an Orweillian dystopia where Republicans get control of everything. (I’m not kidding...read their stupid brief, lol).
My rebuttal: I’m not personally scared of any legislation or amendment coming to the floor for discussion. It’s actually what I expect the House to do.
Nancy Pelosi is trying to return the House to regular order. Yes...we get it...the Republicans misbehaved for eight years, and activist groups now want us to return the favor. But that’s not sound long-term strategy for a functional government.
And part of the reason that Congress is dysfunctional is that we allow partisans in powerful positions to completely block anything they like. Solid laws with broad public support get stuck in committee, or are prevented from being debated by Ryan and McConnell. I mean...good grief...at this exact moment we are marching toward a constitutional crisis because McConnell, as a powerful partisan, won’t allow debate on a bill to protect Mueller. Maybe a mechanism to get that bill to the floor despite McConnell wouldn’t succeed...maybe we still wouldn't get enough Republicans on board...but having such a mechanism is far better than putting the onus on McConnell’s decency or civic duty, either which are in low supply.
Nancy Pelosi is looking to allow bills and amendments onto the floor for debate with less authoritarian control from the Speaker’s chair. Again, that’s a pretty fair proposal. If representatives from forty districts — representing almost thirty million Americans — want the people’s House to debate an amendment, then why should one Rep from San Francisco get to quash that?
Sure, Republicans and moderate Democrats will use this rule to push their agenda. But progressives can avail themselves of the rules as well. All we are saying is that if an idea has broad enough support, it gets a hearing. It’s time for the Mutually Assured Destruction policies of ‘everyone stops everything in Congress’ to end.
Bottom Lines
I’m a very liberal voter. Like many on Kos, I’ve been waiting for years and years to get to a position where we can realize the gains we’ve been wanting for decades. I’m also a pragmatist, and get that with a Republican Senate and President, we are limited in what we will be able to do.
At the same time, it is more important to have the rules and regulations that form the foundations of a good government than it is to have rules that specifically benefit one policy, or one side’s agenda. I’ve had enough of that, and I’m sick of it, and I think voters are too.
I understand that many of us are tired of watching Dems play by the rules while Republicans cheat. There is no question that this is a legitimate complaint. But I don’t find answers to this problem in an ever-descending cycle of chaos and hypocritical governance.
I‘m also not afraid of the fight. I’m not afraid to work for the win. I want to see a M4A system put into place, and I hope that I live to see that day. But it is not Nancy Pelosi’s job alone to make that happen. It’s my job, and yours, and the job of the millions of progressive voters who want the program. We need to commit to the work needed to win over a broad consensus coalition. We were never going to get big change without that anyway, so requiring that 60% of the House authorize a tax hike isn’t really a significant hurdle compared to all the others.
The rules that Pelosi agreed to offer the voters a solid contract with Democrats on how we are going to approach our governance responsibilities. They promise that we will proceed cautiously and wisely, and get their permission for big institutional changes. They allow for more debate on more proposals. They’re good ideas.
So no, I will not sign the Credo petition. I find their arguments to be lazy, ineffectual, and born of a desire to engage in exactly the same bad behavior that we complain about in the GOP. I support Speaker Pelosi on these rules changes, and I see them as an important step toward progress...not a roadblock to it.