Yesterday, in my post noting that the GOP was now demanding $40 billion in cuts, I quoted from a newspaper story that said "218 Republicans" were needed to pass a budget. And I said no, 218 yea votes total. I thought it was a typo.

Now I see that the Roll Call reporters who wrote that may have snuck a little nuclear bomb into their text. Let me explain.

Back in 2004, GOP House Speaker Denny Hastert came up with a new governing theory called "a majority of the majority." This meant that as speaker, he would not pass any legislation that didn't have the support of a majority of his GOP caucus. No matter how many Democrats supported something. If most of his own members weren't for it, he wouldn't move it.

Implications? Well, less bipartisan legislation, right? And more partisan legislation. For example, when Bill Clinton passed Nafta, he did so in the face of lots of Democratic opposition but with lots of Republican support. If he'd lived by the Hastert rule, he never would have passed it.

Hastert was attacked at the time for so naked a partisan ploy. Chuck Babington in the WashPost, November 2004:

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them. Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them. Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.

Well, now, the "majority of the majority" concept may be for children. This is from TPM:

Boehner and the GOP have floated a stopgap spending measure, which includes deep cuts, to buy Congress another week to negotiate -- but Democrats and the White House have rejected that plan. A spokesman for Reid told reporters during a Senate vote that Boehner moved the goalposts in Tuesday's White House meeting. Republicans are now positing $40 billion in cuts as a possible target for a deal -- up a few billion from the range of cuts that had marked the negotiations for about two weeks. Democrats are not accepting that figure. "They're saying they won't agree to anything unless they get 218 Republican votes," Reid told reporters at his weekly press availability after returning from the White House. Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel flatly denied this charge.

Okay, we have Steel's denial, so let's note it. But if Reid is correct, this is truly scandalous. This means Boehner will pass a bill only if it can pass among Republicans only! Forget a majority of the majority. This is 90% of the majority (218 out of 241). He's negotiating with his own caucus. The other party means nothing. He doesn't want a Democratic vote. It functionally won't count to him.

So let's review. Boehner shook hands on $33 billion. Then he got heat from his caucus and said no, $40 billion, at the eleventh hour. Then, if Reid is to be believed, he also said Democratic votes in the House don't count. I need to pass this with 218 Republicans.

There's a name for that. Actually there are several. None of them is "democracy."

