# Speaker of the House 2019 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246 "2018-11-09T16:11:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2018, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/141 "2018-11-29T16:40:18Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The New York Times [in 2015](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/republicans-paul-ryan-house-speaker.html), on Paul Ryan’s 200-43 nomination to be the Speaker: He “won the overwhelming support of his colleagues in the nominating contest and is now set to be installed as speaker.” > The New York Times [in 2018](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/pelosi-democrat-speaker-nomination.html), on Nancy Pelosi’s 203-32 nomination: “The defection of 32 Democrats signaled that she could still face a divisive fight to lead the House just as the party assumes control.” > > :rolleyes: Well, it is a different situation between Ryan taking over for Boehner and Pelosi taking back her presumed position as Speaker. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/142 "2018-11-29T17:28:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yeah, this is just the equivalent of a primary, not the general election. Sure, there are some Democratic reps who would prefer some other Democrat (but not very many, even of them). But how many would prefer a Republican? They don’t need to vote for McCarthy. If 18 of them each vote for themselves, and there are no other defections, Pelosi would have 217 votes, McCarthy would have 200, and 18 Dems would have 1 vote each. Pelosi would have only a plurality of all votes cast, so she would not be Speaker, but neither would McCarthy. If the Quisling Caucus can pull off something like this, they believe they can play dog-in-the-manger until Pelosi gives in and lets them choose one of their own for Speaker. I fully expect Pelosi to walk into the vote for Speaker with 218 votes in hand. But if she doesn’t, and the Quislings pull this sort of shit, my bet is that she doesn’t back down. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/143 "2018-11-29T18:56:30Z")
At the absolute outside, they vote for themselves or whatever on the first ballot to make some sort of point, and then switch to Pelosi on the second ballot. And Pelosi still ends up as speaker. It doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/144 "2018-12-01T08:14:10Z")
I have no particular opinion on Pelosi, but what message should the incoming House majority — on whom so many of us are pinning our fresh hopes — send? _ **"We are unified and eager to fight for America. Thanks for coming to your senses, voters!"** _ or _ **"We’re squabbling brats who can’t help but embarrass ourselves even on our very first vote."** _ _Make Congress Inept Again_ — Is that to be our motto? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/145 "2018-12-01T08:27:06Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I have no particular opinion on Pelosi, but what message should the incoming House majority — on whom so many of us are pinning our fresh hopes — send? > _ **“We are unified and eager to fight for America. Thanks for coming to your senses, voters!”** _ > or > _ **“We’re squabbling brats who can’t help but embarrass ourselves even on our very first vote.”** _ > _Make Congress Inept Again_ — Is that to be our motto? Versus: We are drone bees incapable of doing anything but obeying, whether our masters are on any form of productive path or not. And: We are willing to be critical of ourselves and the system and take a month in debate and hard-core restructuring (if necessary) to ensure that we have the right leadership and the right ideas to hit the ground running, come January, and everyone on the same page, because they truly believe in the plan. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/146 "2018-12-01T08:41:15Z")
😕 Discuss differences in caucus. Show unity in confrontations with the opposition. This isn’t rocket science. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/147 "2018-12-01T08:58:29Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 😕 Discuss differences in caucus. Show unity in confrontations with the opposition. This isn’t rocket science. I am also confused. How does a question of who the Democratic party should elect _from within their own number_ involve the opposition, let alone amount to a confrontation with said opposition? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/148 "2018-12-01T10:05:36Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I am also confused. How does a question of who the Democratic party should elect _from within their own number_ involve the opposition, let alone amount to a confrontation with said opposition? You’re making my point for me. Selecting a Speaker should be a matter internal to the Democratic Party. Why perform the task in the public vote where the opposition participates? Masochism? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2018, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/149 "2018-12-01T10:59:26Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’re making my point for me. Selecting a Speaker should be a matter internal to the Democratic Party. Why perform the task in the public vote where the opposition participates? Masochism? 1. You’re talking about 200+ people and their staff. Keeping it all hush isn’t likely to happen. And, notably, most of the principle work has been done in private - e.g., Fudge and Ocasio-Ortez meeting privately with Pelosi, to make a decision. Beyond that, I have seen some op-eds that made reasonable arguments for particular policy, for a voting block. I haven’t seen hair pulling or people screaming profanities at each other in hallways. Nor have I seen anyone involving any Republicans, nor any Republicans involving themselves. 2. The public wants to see politicians who are principled, strategic, and have a vision. All we see, at the moment, is people operating as individuals, trading away their souls for committee seats, and a few standing by the sidelines pleading for them to go through a review session and see how to make the system better, and just being ignored and losing out on the committee seats because they actually care more about the team and the system than themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/150 "2019-01-02T16:26:51Z")
I take it back. [Fuck Pelosi](https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/nancy-pelosi-pay-go-rule/). > [@](#): > > DESPITE PRESSURE FROM progressive Democrats, the House rules package for the 116th Congress will include a pay-as-you-go provision, requiring all new spending to be offset with either budget cuts or tax increases, a conservative policy aimed at tying the hands of government. > > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who will be sworn in this week to represent a district in New York, will vote against the package, her spokesperson told The Intercept. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., announced Wednesday he would oppose it. > > Presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be sworn in on Thursday, has promised for months to restore the pay-go rule, which she instituted when first taking over the speaker’s gavel in 2007. She ran into resistance from progressives, who believe that the rule would make it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, from “Medicare for All” to a Green New Deal to tuition-free public college. Critics also argue that pay-go creates an unlevel playing field, where Republicans get to blow giant holes in the tax code, as they did with the 2017 tax cuts, while Democrats must pay fealty to the deficit. I don’t know why this is the first I’m hearing about this, apparently she’s been promising it for a while. But… WHY?! In what universe is this in any way sane policy? How is this even good game theory? We already know that the republicans have absolutely no intention of holding to this rule. We already know that deficits only matter under a democratic president. And there’s no way to enforce this rule on anyone but democrats. So why do it? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/151 "2019-01-02T16:30:19Z")
Is this now going to be the general-purpose House Dems disappointment thread? ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/152 "2019-01-02T16:35:52Z")
Pelosi and those other fossils in the Dem party are not going to rock the boat. Remember their only goal is re-election. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/153 "2019-01-02T16:52:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But… WHY?! In what universe is this in any way sane policy? There was a time when it was called Good Governance. Pelosi’s goals are obviously not entirely based on getting back at the Republicans - that’s how \*they \*think and it’s irresponsible to sink to that level. It would be an irreversible slip downhill if the good of the country, distinct from the party, were no longer something that even comes to mind. Democracies do die slowly, but they do die, and that’s how. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/154 "2019-01-02T17:33:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There was a time when it was called Good Governance. But… It’s not. Forget the republicans for a moment; this is just straight-up terrible policy. It makes it that much more difficult and politically painful to pass stimulus when stimulus is necessary. It makes anti-cyclical policy borderline impossible, unless you’re willing to be the party that stands up and says, “We’re going to vote for this despite the fact that it’ll blow up the deficit”, which is, as that Intercept article points out, basically giving the opposition a ready-made attack ad. It handicaps reasonable policymaking, makes important progressive goals that much harder, and turns deficit spending into “something we’re not allowed to do”. Even leaving aside all the game theory stuff about how this is nothing but a handicap democrats place on themselves, it’s just bad policy. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/155 "2019-01-02T17:49:20Z")
Repealing the pay-go rule on the first day you’re back in (a little bit of) power is also “basically giving the opposition a ready-made attack ad.” ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/156 "2019-01-02T17:53:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Repealing the pay-go rule on the first day you’re back in (a little bit of) power is also “basically giving the opposition a ready-made attack ad.” Where was that rule when Trump signed a tax cut destined to massively balloon the deficit? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/157 "2019-01-02T18:00:43Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Where was that rule when Trump signed a tax cut destined to massively balloon the deficit? > [@](#): > > CBO reported on December 21, 2017: "Overall, the combined effect of the change in net federal revenue and spending is to decrease deficits … > **[Tax Cuts and Jobs Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017)** > > The Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 115–97 (text) (PDF), is a congressional revenue act of the United States originally introduced in Congress as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), that amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The legislation is commonly referred to in media as the Trump tax cuts, as it was a key agenda piece of the Trump adminstration The U.... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/158 "2019-01-02T18:13:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017) What is missed on that quote: > [@](#): > > Overall, the combined effect of the change in net federal revenues and spending is to decrease deficits **(primarily stemming from reductions in spending) allocated to lower-income tax filing units** \*\*and to increase deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in taxes) allocated to higher-income tax filing units. \*\*Those effects do not incorporate any estimates of the budgetary effects of any macroeconomic changes that would stem from the agreement. Bold and underline added. So, yes, it did balloon the deficit. A more up to date report on what we are getting into thanks to that: > **[As Debt Rises, the Government Will Soon Spend More on Interest Than on the...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/business/economy/us-government-debt-interest.html)** > > Tax cuts, spending increases and higher interest rates could make it harder to respond to future recessions and deal with other needs. > [@](#): > > As Debt Rises, the Government Will Soon Spend More on Interest Than on the Military > > Tax cuts, spending increases and higher interest rates could make it harder to respond to future recessions and deal with other needs. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/159 "2019-01-02T18:19:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017) So reading that, the first thing that sprung out at me was this passage, from the lede: “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that under the Act individuals and pass-through entities like partnerships and S corporations would receive about $1,125 billion in net benefits (i.e. net tax cuts offset by reduced healthcare subsidies) over 10 years, while corporations would receive around $320 billion in benefits. The CBO estimates that implementing the Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[7] or about $1.891 trillion after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt.[8]” So… Pretty big increase to the deficit, right at the head of the article. You basically couldn’t miss it. Which makes your passage seem a little odd. So I looked for that specific quote and… … Well, you seem to have left out a bit. " Overall, the combined effect of the change in net federal revenue and spending is to decrease deficits \*\* (primarily stemming from reductions in spending) allocated to lower-income tax filing units and to increase deficits (primarily stemming from reductions in taxes) allocated to higher-income tax filing units".\*\* The bolded part, to be precise. Not quite sure how you made that mistake, to be honest - did you skip the first part of the article, then stop reading mid-sentence? Just strikes me as an odd way to use a source. I mean, Pelosi isn’t arguing that we need to maintain the rule. She’s explicitly arguing that it needs to be brought back. Seems like an odd thing to argue if the republicans were applying it consistently, right? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246/160 "2019-01-02T18:31:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Repealing the pay-go rule on the first day you’re back in (a little bit of) power is also “basically giving the opposition a ready-made attack ad.” Is it a rule right now? Can’t repeal it if it isn’t a rule already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaker-of-the-house-2019/824246.md?page=9)