Ocasio-Cortez to Vote against Pelosi Rules Package on First day in Congress over 'Paygo'

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-ocasio-cortez-pelosi-rules-package-congress-paygo-20190102-story.html

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is ready to take a stand — against her own party.

When Democrats take over the House on Thursday the New York Rep.-elect will vote against a rules package that includes a pay-as-you-go provision, requiring all new spending be offset with either budget cuts or tax increases.

The “paygo” provision would make implementing progressive programs such as Medicare for All or tuition-free college harder, experts warn. The rule requires a three-fifths supermajority vote to raise individual income taxes on the bottom 80% of Americans.

Ocasio-Cortez joined Rep.-elect Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in voicing opposition to the proposal on Wednesday.

“Tomorrow I will also vote No on the rules package, which is trying to slip in #PAYGO,” she tweeted. PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as @RoKhanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare+other leg.”

Presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has voiced interest in restoring “paygo” in recent months, drawing heat from liberals.

Ocasio-Cortez supports Pelosi’s bid for speaker, but has cautioned that she’s not afraid to go against the party to stand by her ideals.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill responded to criticism by saying that a vote against the House Democrats’ rules bill “is a vote to let Mick Mulvaney make across the board cuts, unilaterally reversing Democratic initiatives and funding increases.”

Mulvaney is the White House acting chief of staff and President Trump’s former budget chief.

Pelosi, in a statement about the rules bill, touted “paygo” as an improvement over the GOP “cutgo,” which “pretends tax cuts pay for themselves.”

At least 16 others Dems would have to vote against the rules package to block its passage.

While defenders argue “paygo” is a logical way to rein in spending, opponents believe the practice is nothing more than a way to handicap progressive programs.

“Do NOT vote for “PayGo” in the rules package,” former Clinton administration secretary of labor Robert Reich warned lawmakers on Wednesday. “It’s a brainless Republican idea that tax cuts or mandatory spending increases must be offset by tax increases or mandatory spending cuts. Totally disables fiscal policy,”

The rules package also includes sweeping changes that would make the text of bills public for 72 hours before a vote, requires annual ethics training for lawmakers and creates a select committee on climate change.

While the paygo provision won’t have much of an effect while Republicans control the Senate and the White House, progressives would like to see Pelosi move away from the policy as soon as possible.

“We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start,” Ocasio-Cortez added.

Looks like the plucky future of the Democratic party isn't afraid to vote against her party when she thinks they are wrong.

@Damedius: Cheap grandstanding is still cheap grandstanding.

2 voting against when they need 18 is nothing but grandstanding.

An absolutely meaningless stand. More virtue signaling from this woman.

So, should they just vote for something they disagree with to avoid grandstanding?

I mean, if you know you don't currently have the votes, drawing attention to the issue in an effort to get more people on your side seems like a good idea.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the Donald Trump enthusiasts of the board consider conviction and personal standards to be a bad thing.

Good for her! A little dissension in the ranks is great, even if meaningless.

I don't expect her, or her beliefs, to last that long to be honest, but it's nice to see some god damn ideals in one of the few places in the world where they can actually do some good, if allowed to flourish.

Would be nice to see the Republicans do this. Some might talk, sure, but when it comes to voting they toe the line.

Is it grandstanding if it's based on a genuine belief, ideal?

Idunno maybe you're right, but it's still nice to see. Not a fan of Nancy "Cut your Head Off" Pelosi :P

Well, it is nice to see that she is willing to vote based on her own desires rather than being pushed to vote like the rest of the people in her party. But at the same time, doing it now is little more than symbolic because she knows that her vote won’t change the outcome.

It make me wonder if she would vote the same way if her vote was the deciding vote and the other Representatives that have probably been there as long as she was alive are putting pressure on her.

What is the fucking point of democracy then? Just give Pelosi all the democratic votes and kick out the rest if you think that everyone should vote as the old corporate shill told them to anyway.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread so I'm not commenting on the actual content but on your first sentence. She's supposed to vote on the desires of her electorate........not her own desires.

I'm confused, what's the problem with actually paying for the new programs you create?

No, but you and the article are making it out to be something special.

It´s like Mancini´s vote for Kavanaugh, Rep´s had the vote and his vote was not needed but he needed to send a message to his state so he could get elected. Same goes for Cortez, she needs to get re-elected so using every chance to send a signal back to the Hipster voters who got her elected is important to her.

Pelosi is a joke so I get you not being a fan of her.

And i don´t believe this vote against is anything but a virtue signal, this vote is for something that has zero impact as to her voters.

Because that's how political parties work. If people within the party don't at least try for cohesion, then nothing can get done. If people follow AOC's line of thinking and refuse to vote with the party on any issue in order to "make a stand" (i.e. virtue signal), then we're going to see even more of a gridlock than we have under Republicans.

Apparently it's a big problem for the flash-in-the-pan.

What you are describing is not really a representative democracy, it's more oligarchy. If voting against party lines is considered negative behavior, to the point where you simply never do it, then the reality is that all the power in congress really only lies with the majority leader of either chamber.

We all know that intentions don’t always match results. Also, failing to meet all of the desires of her electorate may not result in much more than her getting fewer votes during her reelection run in 2020; her district may never vote for a Republican so as long as she can win her primary she is guaranteed reelection.

Regardless, I’m sure she will try to do great things for her district and I wish her the best even if I don’t agree with many of her positions. Most of my family lives in NYC and some of them live in her district.

Yes but I specifically said what she's supposed to do. Has nothing to do with any of that which you posted. Politicians are elected to SERVE.

Members of Congress have no legal requirement to do what their electorate wants them to do once they are elected. They can do what they want within the limits of the law and their office, but it is to the peril of their reelection. Representative Ocasio-Cortez could announce tomorrow that she's switching to the Republican party while wearing a MAGA hat and the worst thing that could legally happen to her is that she would be a one-term Representative because that would not be grounds for expulsion or impeachment, and recall elections are not an option at the federal level or the State of New York.

With that out of the way, I agree with you on what they should do while they are serving. If I elect someone to office I expect them to govern the way I desire them to and most other people feel the same way. I would assume that her vow to vote against her peers was something she expected that her voters wanted her to do. But in reality, many of the junior members will vote the way the veteran members tell them to vote regardless of the desires of their electorate. If she's willing to stick to her values and that of her electorate, then she's already above many other younger Congressmembers that let the veteran members pull their strings.

People are elected not to vote carte blanche, but to vote their particular conscience. She should do what she thinks best.