Who's calling the Shots Here?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

No, House Republicans Can’t Just Skip Town And Stick Obama With A Ransom Note

BY IAN MILLHISER/Think Progress

Tuesday morning, the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru reported that House Republicans “may pass” their proposal to end the shutdown, prevent default and exact certain concessions from Democrats, “and then skip town.” The implicit threat being that President Obama and the Senate could either take what the House Republican caucus is offering, or they can watch the American economy tumble into the chaos of a debt default.

Such a gambit, however, is unlikely to succeed — at least if the House GOP’s goal is to be far away from Washington when the bottom falls out. The Constitution gives President Obama a way to reconvene Congress, and the House rules enable Leader Nancy Pelosi’s caucus to bring Republicans back to the Capitol to do their job.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States “may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.” Thus, even if Speaker John Boehner managed to adjourn the House and hop on a flight to Ohio, President Obama could summon him back to DC.

The Constitution’s text places few, if any, textual constraints on this power to convene Congress, and there is at least some precedent suggesting that the president can choose the specific date when Congress should reconvene. When President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the Congress back into session on March 5, 1933, he required “the Congress of the United States to convene in extra session at the Capitol in the City of Washington on the Ninth day of March, 1933, at twelve o’clock, noon.” If House Republicans closed down shop at 11pm on Tuesday, there’s nothing in the Constitution suggesting President Obama couldn’t order them back to work at 11:01.

Of course, House Republicans are nothing if not prone to defy this President, but the House rules account for the very circumstance where lawmakers try to prevent the lower house of Congress from operating by refusing to show up to work. Under those rules, “[i]n the absence of a quorum, a majority comprising at least 15 Members . . . may compel the attendance of absent members.” Once such a vote takes place, the House Sergeant-at-Arms may send officers “to arrest those Members for whom no sufficient excuse is made and shall secure and retain their attendance.” So if House Republicans try to flee town, they can be kept at work by force of law.

None of this, of course, forces any member of the House to vote on a bill to avert default. The Constitution, unfortunately, is designed to allow a minorty party controlling just once house of Congress to block any legislation they choose, even if that legislation is necessary to avert catastrophe. But if House Republicans decide to drive the American economy over the cliff, they will at least have a front row seat to witness the mess they’ve created.

Uh Oh: Boehner’s Latest Shutdown Proposal Is Unconstitutional

BY IAN MILLHISER/Think Progress

Tuesday morning, House Republican leaders released a new plan to end the government shutdown and prevent America from defaulting on its debts if the Senate and President Obama agree to several policy demands. One of these demands would take away Members of Congress’ ability to receive an employer contribution to help pay for their health insurance, a benefit they — like all federal employees — currently enjoy.

There’s just one problem with this proposal, it’s unconstitutional unless it’s delayed for more than a year.

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution provides that “[n]o law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” A law eliminating federal contributions to congressmembers’ health benefits is a law “varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives.” So it cannot take effect until after the next federal election in November 2014.

Although the text of the House GOP’s latest proposal is not yet available, they passed similar language denying health care contributions to members of Congress and other select federal employees during an earlier round of the shutdown showdown. That language contains no provision delaying the changes in congressional compensation until after the 2014 election — “[n]o Government contribution under section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, shall be provided on behalf of an individual who is a Member of Congress, congressional staff, the resident, the Vice President, or a political appointee for coverage under this subparagraph.”

Assuming the new proposal’s language tracks the language the House GOP already voted for late last month, the new proposal is unconstitutional.

Here Are The Sleaziest Things Congress Has Done During The Shutdown

 By Nick Wing/Huffington Post

We're now almost two weeks into the government shutdown, and there's been no shortage of outrage over the fact that Congress remains unable to figure out how to end it. Recent polling has shown record levels of support for replacing every member of Congress, and lawmakers are now less popular than witches and dog poop.

This level of unpopularity may not come as a surprise to anyone who's followed the actions of Congress. The shutdown, brought on late last month by House Republicans who insisted that any measure to fund the government must also delay or dismantle Obamacare, has taken a nationwide toll on federal workers and programs. With around 800,000 federal employees furloughed without pay and programs for veterans, women and children increasingly becoming hobbled by the congressional impasse, lawmakers have been more successful at upsetting the people they serve than at ending the shutdown.

Here are some of the sleaziest things members of Congress have done so far:

Grandstand at the World War II Memorial.

The government shutdown threatened to ruin the plans of a group of World War II veterans who had traveled to their memorial on the National Mall on Oct. 1. When confronted with barriers indicating that the area had been closed off to the public due to the shutdown, the veterans, along with some members of Congress, reportedly barged through and defied the order. For the next two days, members of Congress -- most of them Republicans -- flocked down to the World War II memorial to partake in photo ops and the resulting media frenzy. The lawmakers promised to fight for the elderly veterans and make sure that they could have access to their memorial, even though they were at fault for closing it in the first place.

There has since been some confusion as to who is allowed to visit the World War II Memorial and who isn't. The area was recently opened for First Amendment activities only. Demonstrators, including key shutdown architect Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), joined a veteran-led rally at the memorial over the weekend, where they protested the Mall closures and marched to the White House. Amid "Impeach Obama" signs and confederate flags, a tea party speakercalled for President Barack Obama to "put down the Quran" and resign the presidency.

Berate a Park Ranger for the effects of the shutdown.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) was among those Republicans who made his way down to the World War II Memorial in the opening days of the shutdown. When he found a Park Ranger doing her job -- which, at the time, included controlling the crowd at the technically closed memorial -- the congressman blamed her for the closure he had voted for, and told her she should be ashamed of herself.

Put on lab coats and chastise Democrats for not funding cancer research.

A group of House Republicans traveled to the National Institutes of Health, where they threw on lab coats and pleaded with Democrats to undo the damage the shutdown had done to services for children with cancer.

"Let us help people. Let us help children. Please," said Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), whose son suffers from a rare neurogenetic disorder.

In order to help, Republicans wanted Democrats to support a variety of smaller bills that would have funded the government a la carte, based on which programs they believed were most necessary or popular. Democrats declined the offer, insisting that Republicans come to the table with a clean bill to fund the government in its entirety, not just the parts that were upsetting the public.

Fund raise off the whole debacle.

While some lawmakers were apparently not keen to be seen fundraising amid a shutdown that had left nearly a million federal workers furloughed without pay, others adopted a "keep calm and carry on" mentality. A number of Democratsattended a fundraiser for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) in the first week of the shutdown, arguing that just because the government had closed they shouldn't be expected to change their campaign schedules.

The Democratic National Committee also used the GOP's intransigence as a highly successful fundraising tool in the run-up to the shutdown. After reports showed the DNC raised nearly $850,000 in the 24 hours before the shutdown began, Republicans like Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) accused Democrats of having pushed a shutdown simply to bring in donations. The congressman would later send out an email of his own, in which he attempted to raise funds off his allegations that Democrats were fundraising.

Rub their "nice house" in the faces of 800,000 federal employees they helped furlough.

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) has a nice house, and in an interview this month he let everyone know that it was part of the reason he wouldn't be giving up his constitutionally protected $174,000 annual salary amid the shutdown.

"I've got a nice house and a kid in college, and I'll tell you we cannot handle it," hetold the Omaha World-Herald. "Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That's just not going to fly."

More than 100 lawmakers have decided to donate their paychecks to charity amid the shutdown, which has left hundreds of thousands of people nationwide largely without control of their economic wellbeing. Terry later apologized after his comments caused an outcry, and he said he'd have his paycheck withheld.

Tell furloughed employees they shouldn't get back pay while they're prohibited from working.

Despite voting for a measure to compensate government workers for the time they spent furloughed, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) suggested that he felt differently at a recent town hall meeting.

A caller told Yoho that he was fine giving back pay to federal employees who continued working during the shutdown, "but the people that are home watching Netflix and whatever, I'm not sure that we should be sending them checks."

Yoho referred to the bill that passed the House unanimously in his response: "Well, when we voted on that, they were supposed to come back to work as part of that deal. I agree 100 percent with you. If they're not working, they shouldn't get paid."

Suggest furloughed employees take out loans if they can't pay the bills.

For a few brief moments last week, Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) thought it would be a good idea to offer some financial advice to furloughed workers worried they might not be able to pay bills thanks to Congress. Here's his Facebook post on the matter, which was quickly taken down:

A staffer for Pearce later said that another staffer had put up the message, and that it "was in error."

Accuse the president of "curb-stomping" people.

Texas Republican and congressional troll extraordinaire Steve Stockman spent a few days during the first week of the shutdown aggressively blaming Democrats for the shutdown and all of its effects. When Obama refused Republican piecemeal proposals to refund select parts of the government, Stockman repeatedly declared that the president was "curb-stomping veterans."

Keep the congressional gym and other amenities open as essential services.

Critical government services have been slowed or shuttered by the shutdown, but don't worry, your representatives can still get in regular workouts at the congressional gym, thanks to House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) decision to keep it open.According to Think Progress, which first reported the development, the House gym comes packed with a swimming pool, basketball courts, paddleball courts, a sauna, a steam room and flat screen TVs, and taxpayers are still footing the bill for regular cleaning and maintenance, as well as electricity to keep everything running.

Lawmakers also still have access to a Capitol subway system that shuttles them the short distance between the House and Senate office buildings and the Capitol building itself.

Complain that the gym is gross and doesn't have enough towels.

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) pointed out some real pain and suffering in a recent interview, when he deflected calls for the gym to be closed amid the shutdown by noting there weren't even clean towels in it.

"There's hardly anybody working down there. There's no towel service, we're doing our own laundry down there," he said. "And we pay a fee to belong to the House gym. So this is no different than if you're working for an employer that offers a wellness program. You pay a fee to belong, that's what we do there."

Other lawmakers have also complained about the gyms getting disgusting with only a heavily depleted staff on hand.

Republicans priority fail

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How Right-Wing Media Assisted Food Stamp Removal From Farm Bill

JOHN KERR & ALBERT KLEINE/Media Matters For America

House Republicans reportedly plan to remove food stamp funding from the federal farm bill, a move that stands to further jeopardize the survival of the critical anti-poverty program. This move comes after years of right-wing media figures demonizing food stamp recipients as lazy or dependent, with Rush Limbaugh going so far as to propose dumpster diving as an alternative.

Here's a look back at some of the most egregious right-wing attacks on food stamps:

Four Better Ways To Spend The $55 Million Wasted On Votes To Repeal The Affordable Care Act

By Bryce Covert and Adam Peck

For the 37th time since 2011, House Republicans will hold a vote to repeal Obamacare on Thursday, bringing the total cost of all of their failed repeal votes to roughly $55 million in taxpayer money, according to one estimate.

Last year, CBS News calculated that the number of hours spent on 33 repeal votes — then roughly 80 hours, or two full work weeks — cost taxpayers an estimated $48 million. Since then, Republicans have held three more votes (another $4.5 million) and will add another $1.5 million with their latest.

At a time when lawmakers have implemented $85 billion in across-the-board cuts on top of$1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, no dollar can be spared. And the country has serious health-related needs that could use funding. Here are some better health care uses for the more than $50 million these symbolic votes against the Affordable Care Act have wasted:

1. Restore cuts from sequestration to Title X family planning programs and Title V maternal and child health services. The National Women’s Law Centercalculates that a 5 percent cut to the budgets of each program will reduce them by $15 million and $32.5 million, respectively. Rather than voting to repeal a bill that expands women’s access to preventative services, the House could use the money to expand them.

2. Double the Department of Justice’s budget for sexual assault services, which has currently been authorized a $50 million budget. The program gives money to states so that they can support rape crisis centers and other nongovernmental organizations that provide direct intervention, core services, and other assistance to the victims of sexual assault. Current funding is inadequate, as some states receive less than $300,000 and many programs lack the resources to meet victims’ needs.

3. Grant a request for $50 million to train 5,000 new mental health professionals as part of a new initiative to expand mental health treatment and prevention services. This proposal came in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting to address gaps in the mental health system.

4. Help states implement paid leave policies. President Obama included a $50 million State Paid Leave Fund in his 2011 budget to provide start-up support for states that want to enact paid leave for workers. More than 40 percent of workers don’t have access to paid sick leave, heading to work when they or their family members experience an illness, but this funding could help give them a better option.

The current Congress is on track to be the most unproductive since the 1940s, but still has time to hold votes that won’t result in actual legislative change. There are many other priorities lawmakers could focus on instead and better ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

National Security Brief: Poll Finds Americans Aren’t Buying GOP Benghazi Witch-Hunt

By ThinkProgress

Public Policy Polling released a poll on Monday finding that more Americans trust former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Republicans over the GOP-ginned up Benghazi controversy.

Forty-nine percent trust Clinton, versus 39 percent for Republicans. Meanwhile, PPP finds, “Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.” Americans also think Congress should be focusing on more pressing issues such as immigration reform and gun control:

Voters think Congress should be more focused on other major issues right now rather than Benghazi. By a 56/38 margin they say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important than continuing to focus on Benghazi, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales should be a higher priority.

A whopping 41 percent of Republicans polled think the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi is the greatest scandal in U.S. history. “One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history,” PPP adds, “is that 39% of them don’t actually know where it is. 10% think it’s in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.”

In other news:

Reuters reports: A video of a Syrian rebel commander cutting the heart out of a soldier and biting into is emblematic of a civil war that has rapidly descended into sectarian hatred and revenge killings, Human Rights Watch said on Monday. The BBC has more.

The Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank, said in a report released on Monday that the Pentagon could save $1 trillion over the next ten years without eroding combat capabilities — or double the amount of cutsmandated under sequestration.

The Washington Post reports: After failing to halt Iran’s nuclear advances with harsh economic sanctions, a group of U.S. lawmakers and analysts is proposing a more drastic remedy: cutting off Iran entirely from world oil markets.

McClatchy reports: Disagreements among the countries backing the rebels in Syria have led to a drop in weapons shipments, leaving rebels vulnerable to a government military offensive.

GOP Star Witnesses Debunk Right-Wing Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

By Hayes Brown/Think Progress

The “whistleblowers” at today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last September were supposed to break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall, in the eyes of conservatives. Instead, these witness actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP:

1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi

Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.

2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi

House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.

3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down

One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate

Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.” Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on criticizing the report itself.

After Demanding Senate Pass A Budget, GOP Refuses To Enter Budget Negotiations

By Travis Waldron/Think Progress

House Republicans spent most of their time over the last three years reminding Americans that Senate Democrats hadn’t passed a budget in two, then three, then four years. It was a regular Republican talking point, a particular favorite of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s. But now that the Senate has returned to regular order by passing a budget, House Republicans are refusing to come to the table to negotiate a long-term spending plan.

Republicans passed their own budget, the plan Ryan authored, in March, and since the proposal differs from the Senate budget, regular order requires the two chambers to come together in conference to iron out their differences in a compromise budget that is then taken back to the full memberships of each house. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has hinted at forming such a conference for more than a week, but Republicans have shown no willingness to join him. This morning, Senate Republicans blocked Reid from creating a conference committee, a move that led Reid to accuse them of turning “a complete 180″:

“It seems House Republicans don’t want to be seen even discussing the possibility of compromise with the Democrats for fear of a Tea Party revolt,” Reid said.

He noted that Republicans have called for “regular order” for years.

“A strange thing happened: House Republicans did a complete 180 — they flipped. They’re no longer interested in regular order even though they preached that for years,” Reid said.

The GOP offered numerous excuses for why they wouldn’t approve a conference, including that certain rules need to be worked out. Ryan and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R), the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, have said they need to agree to “framework” for a deal to make a compromise more likely.

What that “framework” would need to be to get Republicans to agree to conference, however, is clear: a deal that cuts spending but includes no new tax revenue. That has been a consistent GOP demand throughout budget and spending fights over the last three years, a sticking point that has brought the government to the brink of both shutdown and default. It’s also a concession Democrats and President Obama are unwilling to make, given that they have already agreed to nearly $2.5 trillion in spending cuts while receiving little revenue in exchange. Any new deal, in fact, would have to achieve 90 percent of its deficit reduction from tax revenue to balance the overall reductions achieved in the last four years.

House Republicans Vote Down Increase In Minimum Wage

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

House Republicans on Friday unanimously voted down a bill that would have raised the minimum wage. Six Democrats joined them in defeating the effort.

The vote came after a surprise move by Democrats, who tacked onto a jobs training program bill an amendment that would have brought the national $7.25 minimum wage to $10.10 by 2015. But Republicans managed to defeat the effort while approving the bill overall.

A few weeks back, House Minority Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) came out in support raising minimum wage, responding President Obama’s State of the Union call for a wage increase. Pelosi’s effort, and the effort proposed Friday, would actually bring the minimum wage up higher than Obama’s suggestion of $9.

If the minimum wage were brought up to $10.10 an hour, it would not be a revolutionary hike; rather, it would be indexed to inflation and consistent with historical borrowing power. Had the minimum wage been indexed to inflation in 1968, it would be $10.40.

House GOP To Supreme Court: Gay People Are Too Powerful To Get Equal Rights

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

For nearly two years, House Republicans paid conservative superlawyer Paul Clement $520 an hour to defend the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in federal court — and then sent the bill to the American taxpayer. In total Clement has now cost the American people up to $3 million for his efforts on behalf of this unconstitutional law. Last night, we taxpayers finally found out what we were paying for — a 60 page brief explaining why the justices should leave marriage discrimination untouched.

As decades of precedent establish that the Constitution should provide a shield to minority groups when prejudice leaves them without adequate recourse to the political process, Clement includes a section discussing just how very powerful and completely capable of vindicating their rights at the ballot box gay men and lesbians have become. Same-sex marriage is supported by President Obama and Vice President Biden! Less than half of Congress filed a brief agreeing with them! A magazine once wrote an article about how influential the Human Rights Campaign is! For the first time in history, an entire 1 percent of the Senate is openly gay!

After touting the immense political clout of a group that, after 226 years of American democracy, finally managed to elect a single person to the upper house of Congress, Clement then drops this line:

In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history. . . . Gays and lesbians not only have the attention of lawmakers, they are winning many legislative battles. And the importance of this factor in the analysis cannot be gainsaid. . . . [G]iven that the ultimate inquiry focuses on whether a group needs the special intervention of the courts or whether issues should be left for the democratic process, the political strength of gays and lesbians in the political process should be outcome determinative here.

One can only wonder what Paul Clement might have written if Virginia had hired him to defend their practice of racial marriage discrimination when it was before the justices in 1967. “Negro leaders meet often with the President and with Congressional leaders, and indeed, President Johnson himself signed two major laws pushed by the Negro lobby. Negro groups not only led a widely attended rally on the National Mall, but they routinely organize well-attended sit-ins, marches and other events that garner press attention and national sympathy. Recently, a Negro march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama even sparked the President of the United States to give a speech endorsing the Negro lobby’s agenda before a joint session of Congress.”

Because, of course, if the fact that gay people have won a few political battles lately were reason to deny them the equal protection of the laws, then the same would also be true about African-Americans and women. Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act two years before Virginia lost its marriage discrimination case in the Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 promised equal treatment to women in the workplace — a promise still denied to gay men and lesbians — seven years before the justices first recognized that official discrimination against women violates the Constitution. Political victories do not cancel out Americans’ constitutional rights, they augment them, and Clement is simply wrong to suggest otherwise.

Ultimately, the sheer absurdity of Clement’s argument exposes why his claims must not prevail at the Supreme Court. The Constitution of Seneca Falls and Selma is also the Constitution of Stonewall. Clement’s argument would deny all three.

The Republican Debt Ceiling Gambit Is Unconstitutional

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

House Republicans are backing away from their threat to plunge the United States into a catastrophic budget default and will instead pursue the somewhat less reckless strategy of passing a three-month increase in the debt limit. According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), the bill will also contain a provision cutting off congressional pay unless both houses meet a particular milestone: “If the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.”

Before Cantor gets too excited about this plan, however, he may want to familiarize himself with theTwenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

There is no election between now and three-months from now, so no law that would cut off congressional pay can take effect then. The Constitution is very clear on this point. Indeed, Republicans should have discovered this fact when House members read the Constitution aloud on the House floor last Tuesday.

To be sure, it is good news that House Republicans appear to be realizing that they can no longer hold the fate of the entire world economy hostage to their narrow agenda. But they aren’t allowed to violate the Constitution either.

UPDATE

Buzzfeed’s John Stanton reports that Republicans claim their “no budget, no pay” provision is constitutional because “it doesn’t change the level of pay butwithholds it” until a subsequent date. This claim, however, is not consistent with the text of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. The Constitution forbids laws “varying the compensation” of members of Congress, not just laws that change the amount of their pay. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the verb “vary” means “to make a partial change in : make different in some attribute or characteristic.” Changing the timing of congressional pay makes a change in some attribute or characteristic of how members are compensated.

UPDATE

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)agrees, saying on Friday, “that’s unconstitutional.”

Rep. Nadler: ‘Gangster’ Republicans threatening U.S. with another depression

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) blasted Republicans in Congress on Thursday for using the federal debt ceiling as political leverage to demand spending cuts from Democrats.

“[Obama] is betting that the Republican Party is not completely insane,” he said on MSNBC. “I hope that is a good bet. I’m not sure it is, because essentially what Republicans are doing is saying, like a 1930′s gangster, ‘That’s a nice economy you got over there, pity if it should happen to blow up if you don’t pay me off with what I want.’ That’s a direct threat, and the hostage is the entire economy because if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we will default, and if we default we will have a depression. I mean, a real depression.”

Obama has said he will not negotiate over the federal debt ceiling, which authorizes the U.S. Treasury Department to pay the nation’s creditors. Fitch Ratings warned Tuesday that the United States could have its Triple-AAA credit rating downgraded if it fails to raise the debt ceiling in a “timely manner.”

Nadler and other Democrats in the House have introduced legislation that would abolish debt ceiling altogether.

“The debt ceiling is arbitrary, doesn’t affect the deficit, and serves no real function in keeping spending down – and it’s time to abolish it,” the congressman said in a statement. “Only then will we be certain to pay our bills on time and take away from extremists this tool for political blackmail.”

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube, below:

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yCrx)

GOP struggling to find way forward

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republican Jobs Bills Won't Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists

By Erin Mershon/Jennifer Bendery and Michael McAuliff/Huffington post

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans routinely beat the drum about the hard work they have done in passing "more than 30 jobs bills" that are now before the Democrat-controlled Senate, going nowhere, as the economy gasps for air.

For almost a year, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have plugged their jobs package at every opportunity. They regularly bring it up at press events, during floor speeches and in statements in response to just about anything related to the economy. Boehner even carries aroundin his jacket pocket a 4-by-8-inch card that lists off their jobs bills, and he encourages his members to flash their cards at campaign events.

"President [Barack] Obama and Democrats here in Congress have shown us what doesn't work: more government, more spending, more taxes don't create more jobs," Boehner said at a recent weekly briefing. "We've passed more than 30 jobs bills, including bipartisan bills expanding energy production and projects like the Keystone pipeline."

Cantor plugged the jobs bills -- and nudged Democrats to get on board with the Republican plan -- in response to the June unemployment report. "House Republicans are committed to bold, pro-growth policies and have passed dozens of bills to create jobs," he said in a statement. "We've begun to right the ship, but we will not be able to achieve long-term growth without willing partners in the White House and Senate."

The GOP jobs package, which currently includes 32 bills, represents Republicans' hallmark legislative accomplishment over the past two years. In the months ahead of the election, they will lean on it as proof of two things: that they are not the do-nothing obstructionists that Democrats paint them as, and that they are working hard to address the 8.2 percent unemployment rate.

But there's a problem with their jobs bills: They don't create jobs. At least, they won't any time soon.

In interviews conducted by The Huffington Post with five economists, most said the GOP jobs package would have no meaningful impact on job creation in the near term. Some said it was not likely to do much in the long term, either.

"A lot of these things are laughable in terms of a jobs plan that would produce noticeable improvements across the country in the availability of employment in the next four or five years," said Gary Burtless, a senior economist at Brookings. "Even in the long run, if they have any effect all, it would be extremely marginal, relative to the jobs deficit we currently have."

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.

"These kind of changes will matter over a period of three to five years," Zandi said. "It takes that long before businesses can digest changes and respond to them."

He noted, though, that legislation as narrowly targeted as the Republican package is unlikely to do much for real job creation.

"For it to show up in a meaningful way in the natural economy, you can make specific changes that could affect a specific industry or a few companies, but it's not going to make a big difference in terms of the monthly job numbers," Zandi said. "It takes some very significant changes across lots of different industries to really make a big difference."

Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority."

At the heart of the GOP jobs package is a push for rolling back regulations -- and gutting environmental laws that regulate clean air and water -- to spur job growth. The House Republican Conference website makes the argument that deregulation will "remove onerous federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation."

But economists told The Huffington Post that regulation has had a minimal impact on the unemployment rate. Their claim is backed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that just under 16,000 jobs, or 0.4 percent, were lost because of "government regulations/intervention."

"It's just hard to believe that the paperwork requirements to starting a business represent a major impediment to starting businesses right now," Burtless said. "That's not why we had lots more business creation in the late '90s."

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, warned that any potential job creation from environmental deregulation could be offset by health concerns.

"If you increase employment but you have a lot more sick people, you have to ask yourself, 'What's the trade-off?'" he said. "The highest level of GDP is not necessarily the highest level of national satisfaction or national health."

Indeed, environmental advocates argue that many of the GOP proposals are more likely to kill people than create jobs.

"It won't save them jobs, it won't even save them that much money, but it is going to cause illnesses, deaths, more hospital stays or days lost because of illness,” said Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That's why we have all these environmental laws.”

Not all of the GOP proposals are focused on environmental deregulation. A handful call for weakening the authority of the National Labor Relations Board as a way to boost businesses' savings, which could, in theory, then be reinvested in new jobs.

But Burtless said those proposals are more likely to impact those currently working than those seeking work.

"They may weaken the ability of current workers to negotiate for better working conditions or wages. They may lessen the ability of workers who want to join unions to do so in companies that are currently unorganized," he said. "But it's just hard to believe that they create jobs in the short run."

Even one of the more popular bills in the mix -- a small business tax cut -- won't do much for job creation, some of the economists said. They argued that it's not that businesses need more money for hiring, but that they need a sufficient demand for their products.

"They know that if they hire people to produce more widgets, they won't be able to sell the widgets," Prakken said. "Giving them a tax break just increases their profits," but doesn't encourage hiring.

Riccadonna disagreed. He acknowledged that weak demand is the biggest problem facing businesses, but said the small business tax cut is still the most likely of all the GOP bills to create jobs.

"We should be focusing on small businesses and what we can do to make business conditions more favorable for them, because that's where the real turn in labor market will lie," he said. "So anything that makes life or operating conditions a little bit easier for them, that I would certainly be in favor of. That will have a meaningful jobs impact."

Ultimately, each economist was clear on one point: The GOP package is far more political than practical.

"It's game playing to try to pretend like they're doing something," said Jesse Rothstein, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's silly season, and so they know they have to put up something that has the label 'job creation' on it, whether or not it would work."

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel demurred when asked for a response. He reiterated that Senate Democrats are holding up their job-creation bills.

"The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled United States Senate," said Steel. "We have passed a responsible budget that deals with our deficits and debt, a bill to replace the 'sequester,' which would be disastrous for our national security, and ... we will vote to stop the tax hike on every American taxpayer, which is scheduled for the end of this year. In short, we are acting on the American peoples’ priorities: jobs and our economy."

A Cantor spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

For all their complaints about Senate inaction, Boehner and Cantor regularly fail to point out that the Senate has, in fact, passed nearly a dozen of Republicans' so-called jobs bills in the last two years. Eleven have already become law, and another one has passed the Senate but hasn’t been signed into law yet.