by Simon 369 Replies latest social current
Simon- The other speculation about the Tea Party is that their backers know exactly what they are doing namely the old States Rights vs the Federal government. This is the reemergence of the Jim Crow New Confederacy and the southern Red States seems to bare this out.
There are specific groups and specific elected officials pushing secession in their speeches.
So then what is the point of having states at all? Do the libs ulimately just want all power to be centralized in some even more bloated federal bureaucracy? Also, I fail to see how states rights equate to a revival of Jim Crow laws.
In these cases the States in question have pushed for specific things- challenging Roe V Wade and a women's right to choose (and to have access to medical support) by defunding clinics and threatening doctors and nurses with legal actions, voter restrictions and gerrymandering districts against minorities are another sore spot.
The Federal government should set high standards for the environment and States should choose to meet or exceed those standards but not allow lower standards of land air and water pollution to function as normal.
The Tea Party is a front group for FreedomWorks, which is an organization populated by a list of usual Republican suspects. For visual purposes, you can think of the Tea Party as a festering carbunkle on the derriere of the Republican party.
wow.
Late on the night of Sept. 30, with the federal government just hours away from shutting down, House Republicans quietly made a small change to the House rules that blocked a potential avenue for ending the shutdown.
Here's what happened.
The House and Senate were at an impasse on the night of Sept. 30. The House's then-most-recent ploy for extracting Obamacare concessions from Senate Democrats and the White House -- by eliminating health insurance subsidies for Congress members and their staffs -- had been rejected by the Senate. The 'clean' Senate spending bill was back in the House's court.
With less than two hours to midnight and shutdown, Speaker John Boehner's latest plan emerged. House Republicans would "insist" on their latest spending bill, including the anti-Obamacare provision, and request a conference with the Senate to resolve the two chambers' differences.
Under normal House rules, according to House Democrats, once that bill had been rejected again by the Senate, then any member of the House could have made a motion to vote on the Senate's bill. Such a motion would have been what is called "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full House. At that point, Democrats say, they could have joined with moderate Republicans in approving the motion and then in passing the clean Senate bill, averting a shutdown.
But previously, House Republicans had made a small but hugely consequential move to block them from doing it.
Here's the rule in question:
When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.
In other words, if the House and Senate are gridlocked as they were on the eve of the shutdown, any motion from any member to end that gridlock should be allowed to proceed. Like, for example, a motion to vote on the Senate bill. That's how House Democrats read it.
But the House Rules Committee voted the night of Sept. 30 to change that rule for this specific bill. They added language dictating that any motion "may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee."
So unless House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wanted the Senate spending bill to come to the floor, it wasn't going to happen. And it didn't.
"I've never seen this rule used. I'm not even sure they were certain we would have found it," a House Democratic aide told TPM. "This was an overabundance of caution on their part. 'We've got to find every single crack in the dam that water can get through and plug it.'"
Congressional historians agreed that it was highly unusual for the House to reserve such power solely for the leadership.
"I've never heard of anything like that before," Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told TPM.
"It is absolutely true that House rules tend to not have any explicit parliamentary rights guaranteed and narrowed to explicit party leaders," Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution, told TPM. "That's not typically how the rules are written."
Republican staff on the House Rules Committee did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But here's what House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) told Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) when she raised those concerns before the rule change was approved.
"What we're attempting to do is to actually get our people together rather than trying to make a decision," Sessions said. "We're trying to actually have a conference and the gentlewoman knows that there are rules related to privileged motions that could take place almost effective immediately, and we're trying to go to conference."
"You know that there could be a privileged motion at any time...," Sessions continued as Slaughter continued to press the issue.
"To call for the vote on the Senate resolution," Slaughter interjected. "I think you've taken that away."
"I said you were correct. We took it away," Sessions said, "and the reason why is because we want to go to conference."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown
The GOP want to derail the economic recovery. The Bond Market is now signaling higher rates and inflation. Like in the last market crash caused by the GOP led Congress, how many elected officials are using their insider knowledge to change their stock holdings.
Monday could be a wild ride for the US Markets.
@Designs ****how many elected officials are using their insider knowledge to change their stock holdings.******
Yup, like Cantor and mr. "Not ment to be a factual statement" Kyl, Glaring conflict of interest as they invested in a fund that would skyrocket if there was a default ! ....and these guys are suppose to be the real Patriots...this act was at best a conflict of interest and at worst treason !
designs,
The GOP want to derail the economic recovery.
GOP members want to keep their seats in Congress, whether the House or Senate. As do the Democrats. You are a fool to think that anyone is really there fighting for your best interest.
The Bond Market is now signaling higher rates and inflation.
It is going to happen sooner or later, and there is no way out of it. When it does happen, and things go very far south, are you going to look for the real cause, or are you going to blame a political party? Or worse yet, are you going to blame capitalism?
Like in the last market crash caused by the GOP led Congress, how many elected officials are using their insider knowledge to change their stock holdings.
I agree that Congress should not have special rules reguarding inside information. I disagree that the GOP caused the "last market crash". It was the GOP, and Dems, and Bush, and Clinton, and Carter, and especially the FED.
MMM
designs,
Everytime we go all Free Market with loose consumer protections and we go all crashy crashy burn burn.
Not true. The government, especially the FED, is the cause. But capitalism gets blamed every time, and it has nothing to do with capitalism or the free market. It is the deviation from the free market that causes the bubble in the first place.
The Boards of Directors can steer excessive bonuses while denying coverage to policy holders. ACA should be a protection against those abuses.
I get your frustration with insurance companies. But we use insurance for paying medical bills. It should not be that way. Insurance should be used for insurance - for insurable events. If you mandate these insurance companies conver things that are not insurable events (a standard colon screening at 50, for example. or birth control), they will simply roll that cost into the premiums, tack on 10% for paperwork and CEO bonus expansion.
Put Elizabeth Warren on the ACA oversight committee.
Put anyone you want there. It won't matter.
MMM
