Majority of the majority

Bob A. pointed me to this nice NYT editorial that explained just how wrong it is that the Republican House will not take a vote on any legislation unless a majority of their caucus approves – this majority of the majority rule:

That informal rule, which bars a vote on legislation unless it has the support of a majority of Republicans, has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to progress and consensus in Congress, and, in its own way, is even more pernicious than the filibuster abuse that often ties up the Senate. Under the 60-vote requirement to break a filibuster, at least, coalitions can occasionally be formed between the Democratic majority and enough Republicans to reach the three-fifths threshold…

But under the majority-of-the-majority rule in the House, Democrats are completely cut out of the governing process, not even given a chance to vote unless Republicans have decided to pass something. Since 2010, there have been enough extremist Republicans in the caucus to block consideration of most of the bills requested by the White House or sent over from the Senate. If President Obama is for something, it’s a safe bet that most House Republicans are against it, and thus won’t bring it up…

The majority-of-the-majority requirement, however, is relatively new and entirely a Republican creation. Newt Gingrich occasionally used it when he was speaker, but it was institutionalized in 2004 by Speaker Dennis Hastert (and Tom DeLay, the power behind the throne).

Some commentary I was listening to the other day suggested that debt ceiling “crisis” would go away immediately if not for this rule.  It’s also safe to say Ronald Reagan would have never passed anything of substance if the Democrats had been using this rule back in the 1980’s.  As long as Republican apply this rule its going to be very hard to get anything worthwhile done in Obama’s 2nd term.