You have the history of "paygo" requirements incorrect. The first time it was introduced and supported by Rs was in 1990. It required that funding be CUT for anything that increased the deficit (and that wasn't mandatory, in other words it was discretionary spending) at the end of the fiscal year. That particular "paygo" expired in 2002.
Actually, you're wrong right there. It first passed in 1990. Then it was extended in 1993. And then it was extended again in 1997. The 1997 extension expired at the end of 2002. Then, the Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts and the prescription drug bill.
Did you know that in those 12 years it was effective that not even once did a sequester occur? When something was scheduled for sequester, the congress would intervene and stop such an event from occurring. This particular version of "paygo" had no teeth whatsoever and didn't cut anything. The imaginary "surplus" was created by stealing openly from social security funds and cutting military spending due to the end of the cold war.
But that's the same PAYGO that Republicans once voted for. Suddenly they don't like it? Fine, they don't like it. But why bother defending their dislike of PAYGO and instead just saying that PAYGO stinks.
Did you also know that there is a current Paygo Tool used right now by Congress? Did you know it is far more effective than the sequestration process as it requires a 60 votes to waive a paygo point of order? The Ds are hoping people will be unknowledgeable, like you apparently are, as to this fact so they can replace it with another toothless version that will be passed over by legislation that exempts itself from sequestration and/or forces an increase in taxation based on rules.
The current PAYGO is a House rule, passed by the Democrats and oppose by the Republicans. This is statutory PAYGO which, in fact, is harder to go around than a House Rule and it applied for five years as opposed to two. Moreover, this statutory PAYGO imposes the same 3/5ths majority to defeat a PAYGO point of order so factually you are off-base as well. The sequestration order issued after legislation has been passed and the accompanying reductions happen automatically. It would require a new act of Congress to get around a sequestration order under this law.
I would also note that points of order apply only to "emergency" legislation, not to sequestration orders. You are confusing two different concepts. Points of order are used to prevent spending from occurring in the first instance. The sequestration process occurs at the end of the fiscal year after legislation has already been passed.
In short the Ds are hoping to pass a negative version of the current point of order (the version of paygo currently in place) which would then require 60 votes for any tax cut, or extension of tax cuts. In contrast the current version makes it so that 60 votes are needed to exempt the point of order and pass something that would violate the rule.
Actually, that's just not so. 60 votes are needed under this statute to defeat
a point of order. You're just making things up now.
This new "version" of "paygo" would make it so they could point to this rule as a reason they were unable to keep the promise that NO FORM OF TAXATION would increase on anybody making less than 250K per year (made by the most visible of Ds currently in government...) as tax cuts on everybody were made nearly impossible to extend.
This isn't a new version of PAYGO. You're premise is flawed. Additionally, this PAYGO rule contemplates tax reductions on the middle class and has built in adjustments for that explicit purpose.
It's a form of "paygo" that is fiscally wrong, and the current emphasis on it by all the lefty blogs (and yourself) is based solely in the "gotcha" game.
I've pointed this out to you several times in this thread.
The Rs prefer the current form of paygo that is effective in actually cutting costs of some of the bills that Ds are passing. Each of their votes against the D's newest pretense at paygo supports continuing post policy Paygo as it is far more effective than the past rule or the proposed rule on paygo.
As I said, your underlying premise is flawed. The statutory version of PAYGO is much stronger that the House Rule. It includes the point of order mechanism to prevent additional spending without a revenue source and also includes the sequestration provision should CBO projections not prove accurate.
Oh, and just for kicks I'd note that
the Republicans voted against the House PAYGO rule, too.
