Political Animal
Blog
So far, we’ve seen the payroll tax-break fight play out in a variety of steps. The first was House Republicans passing a ridiculous, right-wing extension of the tax policy, filled with extremist goodies that necessarily made the bill a non-starter. The second was the Senate approving a temporary, bipartisan compromise.
The third, of course, came yesterday when House Republicans rejected the bipartisan compromise and said they wanted a conference committee to reconcile the two bills.
It’s quickly looking like the conference committee itself is at the heart of the GOP strategy, such as it is. It’s worth taking a moment to consider why.
Yesterday, Major Garrett reported House Republicans might approve the Senate agreement if Senate Democrats agreed to a conference committee on “a full, one-year payroll tax extension with spending cut offsets by Feb. 1.” Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) effectively offered House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that deal: pass the bipartisan deal and policymakers can get to work on “negotiations on a longer extension.”
Time will tell if the House GOP can accept this — at this point, it’s tough to guess — but what’s with all this conference-committee talk?
To offer a quick refresher since they’ve become quite rare in recent years, conference committees have historically been used to bridge the gap between similar-but-distinct versions of the same bill that have already passed the House and Senate. It works a bit like the recently-disbanded “super committee” — members of both parties and both chambers work out a bill that’s then sent to the floors for congressional approval. In the case of the payroll-cut policy, Boehner figures there are two competing versions, so he wants a conference committee to work it out.
As a practical matter — the policy expires in 10 days — sending the policy to a conference committee for an extended debate is killing the bill. But there’s more to it than that. Referencing a piece from Sarah Binder, Ezra Klein had a good take on this earlier.
[I]nsisting on a conference committee serves three purposes for Boehner. First, it offloads the compromises on a coalition of negotiators who come from different wings of the House Republicans. That protects Boehner in the final agreement. Second, it creates a procedural argument that distracts from the underlying disagreement: House Republicans won’t want to extend the payroll tax cut except in the absence of extraordinary policy concessions, like the immediate greenlighting of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Third, it lets Boehner spend some time standing up to the Senate and the president who are trying to rush a compromise through the House — a move that perhaps gives him some political capital he can spend on the ultimate compromise, as he’ll have proven to House Republicans that he didn’t capitulate at the first sign of pressure.
Ultimately, the conference committee would inevitably fail, just as every recent bipartisan committee has failed, and for the same reasons — Republicans don’t want to compromise.
And when it did, Boehner could have an excuse to avoid responsibility, and the media would feel obligated to tell the public that “both sides” failed to reach an acceptable compromise. Since Republicans don’t want to extend the payroll tax break anyway, it’s the best of all possible worlds — middle-class taxes would go up, the economy would get worse, and Republicans would share the blame with Democrats.
Facebook
Twitter
Josef K on December 21, 2011 2:17 PM:
Oh for gods sake. It was obvious from the start why the House Republicans went this route. Just let the payroll holiday expire and call it the Tea Party's Tax. They're the ones who're so hot and bothered anyway.
Danp on December 21, 2011 2:21 PM:
You can fool some of the people all of the time, but Boehner and friends are relying too much on transparent gimmicks. This sudden desire to make it a one year extension isn't going to fool a lot of people. Tea Potters must be wondering who came up with this and how does it fit in their ideology. "Suddenly we're on the side of the welfare queens? Huh?"
c u n d gulag on December 21, 2011 2:40 PM:
Where have I seen this movie before?
This doesn't look like "Braveheart" to me!
Well, ok, the Republicans all did stand up and show us their asses as they left the House this morning.
But that's about the extent of any similarity.
square1 on December 21, 2011 2:48 PM:
Dear Democrats, repeat after me: "There is no longer time for a conference committee."
That's it. Less than 10 words.
Go on TV. Don't explain. Don't elaborate. Say the words. Repeat them.
Bruce K on December 21, 2011 3:11 PM:
It's important to remember that Republicans believe there is NO downside for them if the economy goes sour again. If the recovery holds or builds, they stand to lose the House and their only chance to regain the Senate, not to mention the Presidency, so they will accept whatever short-term political fallout they must to succeed in stalling or reversing the recovery.
zandru on December 21, 2011 3:23 PM:
A Boneheaded Strategy
It depends upon
1. Americans having no memory of the last few months
2. The media slanting everything as a Republican win, a Democratic failure
3. Either the Democrats in Congress or the President capitulating
Now, admittedly, "1" is pretty typical, and "2" and "3" have been guaranteed for the last couple of years. But I see the situation changing. Thanks in part to the nationwide "Occupy" movements, "1" is no longer the case. Through "Occupy" and the oncoming election, "3" has also changed.
We still need to work on the media, however. Any outlet that spins this as "Democrats blocked" or "the House rejected" needs a phone call, email, fax, or letter - or some combination thereof. They can't hear you shouting at the teevie or wringing your hands, you know.
"some empanedi", suggests Captcha. Maybe a dozen from the nearest panaderia...
DenverRight on December 21, 2011 4:01 PM:
"Ultimately, the conference committee would inevitably fail, just as every recent bipartisan committee has failed..."
On the other hand, the conference committee is a historically successful way for the House and Senate to reconcile two contradictory bills. On such occasions, the resulting reconciliation bill is the only way that both the House AND the Senate can contribute to the legislative process.
Last time I checked, the Constitution created a BICAMERAL legislature. Do posters here intend that one house should merely be the rubber stamp for the other? If so, should the Senate have simply voted on the House bill,instead of crafting their own?
If bipartisanship is truly dead, why not fire EVERY elected official in Washington and turn the government over to the first 535 names in the Des Moines phonebook?
As hard as it is to implement or accept, our government should not be completely controlled by one party or by one branch.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on December 21, 2011 4:30 PM:
@DenverRight:Do posters here intend that one house should merely be the rubber stamp for the other?
Nobody here expects "the House" to rubber stamp the Senate, because, yes, it is a bicameral legislature as you correctly point out. But it's not "the House" that's holding this business up: It's the Republicans in the House.
DenverRight on December 21, 2011 4:49 PM:
You mean like the Democrats in the Senate held up business, by refusing to pass the one-year extension that the House bill and the President wanted?
Each chamber in Congress has a different party in the majority. That would seem to REQUIRE a conference committee to reconcile differences between the two sides.
The only reason that the Healthcare Affordability Act did not go to conference committee, when BOTH chambers were controlled by Democrats but they disagreed, was that the reconciliation bill would not have passed the in the Senate.
Conference committees are normal procedure, they are routine, we should not blame the House (in which Republicans control the output) for wanting a conference committee.
chi res on December 21, 2011 5:05 PM:
If bipartisanship is truly dead
Maybe you missed the 89-10 vote (including 39 republicans) in the Senate on this very bill. Now it's time for the House to do likewise.
And if it's bipartisanship you want, why wouldn't Boehner, as Speaker of the whole House--republicans and democrats alike--let them decide by simply voting the bill up or down?
T2 on December 21, 2011 5:16 PM:
the 89-10 vote is easy to explain. The GOP Senate demanded two concessions and were awarded both by the Dems. They figured that in two months, they can go ahead and get several more concessions for yet another deal. It was win-win for them and they knew it. I don't call that bipartisanship, I call it taking a great deal after making the other side cave in.
chi res on December 21, 2011 5:22 PM:
I don't call that bipartisanship, I call it taking a great deal after making the other side cave in.
Of course you do. But some of us care about the unemployed and working folks who need that extra $1500 in their pocket next year.
Others think it's better to be RIGHT and let them suffer, I guess.
Doug on December 21, 2011 9:14 PM:
T2, one of the two things Senate Democrats agreed to was the expediting of the approval process for that oil pipeline; ie, a ruling would be required in either 60 or 90 days. The State Department has already said several times that an expedited process will result in the pipeline NOT being given the go-ahead, as there won't be enough time for proper assessments, studies, etc.
This is a loss for Democrats?