Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert Mumbles

Hastert was interviewed on a morning C-SPAN program and among other things he said:

The Hastert Rule isn't really a rule at all. It just means that if there are 218 House members who will support a bill you bring it up for a vote AND that any Speaker who doesn't ensure a majority of his caucus can support a bill he probably won't be Speaker very long. Naturally these two ideas are contradictory. The way current Speaker of the House John Boehner has been operating (his version of the Hastert Rule) is that he ONLY brings a bill up for a vote if the majority of the Republican caucus will support it. That, naturally, divides the House by denying Democrats any chance whatsoever to find coalitions across the aisle on any bill. It's the most divisive behavior (in my memory) of any House Speaker...ever. I don't know that he does it of his own accord. It's probably forced on him by his caucus and the TEA party Republicans. Is it any wonder Boehner can't pass bills which are also brought up for a vote in the Senate. They're so partisan no Democrats in the Senate will touch them. Even Dennis Hastert's House (ending in 2006) did better than that.

He also said, "You either pay interest on the debt or on the inflation." Bizzare. Sure sure, the government pays interest on the debt and inflation implies higher costs for people. But, when there is debt it means we didn't raise enough taxes to pay our bills and the rich are the ones most likely to lend to the government and to receive back their principal and interest. So, it's a kind of welfare program for tax cheats (if you will). On the other hand, inflation hits everyone who consumes things. In a sense, like a consumption tax, that's regressive since the poor spend every penny they've got and the rich only spend part of their income. So, if we would just tax the rich, so goes Hastert's theory, and pay down the debt, the economy would boom and raise inflation and hurt the poor. But, isn't it still better to have a working work-force rather than have a bad economy requiring bigger government safety net spending to help the unemployed? His implication that you have to have either debt or inflation is also probably not to be believed. Underlying a complicated argument with one big lie or mistake isn't helpful.

Republicans are very confused.