Hmmmmm...

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/97787 ... -jobs-bill

Wonder why so many Dems abandoned ship over this one? This kind of stuff gets you fired in the real world, so why not in the political one?

[Taxious]

lol is your name NEAL PATRICK ?

[Minute]

Tax is Sherlock Holmes. Embar should marry a dude named Mr. Harris! That would be awesome.

[Ddrak]

What the hell did the anti-porn thing have to do with a private R&D funding bill? That makes no sense. Awesome stalling tactic though - Dems should have used it on some of the war funding bills back in the last administration. "Yes, we'll fund the war, except for soldiers that looked at porn!"

Dd

[Kulaf]

Attaching things to bills that have nothing to do with the orginal intent is one of the things I hate about the way Congress works. Both sides do it.

[Lurker]

Embar,
You've focused entirely on the shallow diversion and not at all on the substance. The GOP tactic, shallow as it was, completely fooled you.

Here's an article that does a better job explaining what actually happened. Republicans put forth an amendment that gutted the bill and also included a diversion; an election year gimmick. So of course that's all Embar focuses on.

[Embar Angylwrath]

@Minute and Dd.. yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the bill, but that's the way things are done in Washington, so its fair play for either side.

@Lurker... I think you missed my point... why would the Dems not vote for the bill as amended? All it would do is not allow federal dollars to be spent on salaries of those using government computers to look at porn. I'd posit that a government worker that is using the computer to view porn is probably not using his or her time effectively doing their jobs while doing so, so why not cut 'em? It applied to any government worker, not just Democrats.

[Lurker]

The substance has completely flown over your head.

The GOP amendment didn't just add the absurd porn provision, it gutted the bill. They were counting on some Democrats being too cowardly to vote against it, which they were, and on a general public being too shallow and stupid to see the tactic for what it was, which they clearly are.

Maybe this article explains it better. Try reading it and let me know if you still don't understand the tactic the GOP used to stop an important bill that made it through committee with strong bi-partisan support.

So the Democrats will try again next week to get an important piece of legislation passed, the Republicans will likely continue to use absurd gimmicks to block needed action while trying to trap the Democrats in embarrassing votes, and Embar will continue focusing on the diversion and blaming the Democrats.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The only thing I can see in either article that you might consider "gutting" is this (from the first article)

House Republicans successfully amended the bill to eliminate costly new programs and freeze funding at current levels until Congress has established a balanced budget

So they are controlling spending, good for them, we need more of that in light of the exploding deficit under Obama. And if Dems think the anti-porn measure was just a flimsy tactic (hey, I'm all for porn, but not on my dime), where was the courage to stand up to the Reps?

[Lurker]

Here's what the motion to recommit did according to the Republican sponsor:

* Eliminating funding authorizations beyond 2013, saving $38.2 billion;
* Striking the new programs in the bill, saving $1.3 billion;
* Freezing funding for all existing programs at current levels for 2011-2013 unless there is no deficit, saving $8 billion;
* Providing special consideration to schools that make STEM programs available to disabled veterans and to schools chartered to serve disabled students;
* Prohibiting any Federal employee who has been disciplined for downloading, viewing, or exchanging pornographic material from receiving a salary on the taxpayer dollar; and
* Ensuring that institutions receiving Federal funding allow military recruiters on their campuses.

Whether you call that needed savings or not, the changes gut the bill and eliminate the programs the bill was meant to enact. That's why the Democrats pulled consideration until next week when they will try again. It had nothing to do with the porn provision, and you'd have know that if you looked at the subject more deeply than the headlines.

And if Dems think the anti-porn measure was just a flimsy tactic (hey, I'm all for porn, but not on my dime), where was the courage to stand up to the Reps?

No argument there. The Democrats that voted for the motion are cowards. I still put the lions share of the blame on the Republicans.

we need more of that in light of the exploding deficit under Obama.

Obama has reduced the deficit from what was projected when he took office and signed legislation that is projected to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars in the coming decades. He's made every attempt to pay for new spending. Do we really need to go over your false statements about the deficit again?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Here's what the motion to recommit did according to the Republican sponsor:

* Eliminating funding authorizations beyond 2013, saving $38.2 billion;
* Striking the new programs in the bill, saving $1.3 billion;
* Freezing funding for all existing programs at current levels for 2011-2013 unless there is no deficit, saving $8 billion;
* Providing special consideration to schools that make STEM programs available to disabled veterans and to schools chartered to serve disabled students;
* Prohibiting any Federal employee who has been disciplined for downloading, viewing, or exchanging pornographic material from receiving a salary on the taxpayer dollar; and
* Ensuring that institutions receiving Federal funding allow military recruiters on their campuses.

Whether you call that needed savings or not, the changes gut the bill and eliminate the programs the bill was meant to enact. That's why the Democrats pulled consideration until next week when they will try again. It had nothing to do with the porn provision, and you'd have know that if you looked at the subject more deeply than the headlines.

And if Dems think the anti-porn measure was just a flimsy tactic (hey, I'm all for porn, but not on my dime), where was the courage to stand up to the Reps?

No argument there. The Democrats that voted for the motion are cowards. I still put the lions share of the blame on the Republicans.

we need more of that in light of the exploding deficit under Obama.

Obama has reduced the deficit from what was projected when he took office and signed legislation that is projected to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars in the coming decades. He's made every attempt to pay for new spending. Do we really need to go over your false statements about the deficit again?

I don't agree with you as it relates to the substance of your post, but as to your last statement, let's focus on that. Controlling the expanding deficit (no matter who is in power) is critical, IMHO, to the stability of the US economy, and therefore to the entire stability of the US social structure. If we were smaller, we'd be Greece. Essentially, expanding cost obligations, and no adequate funding for those obiligations, and then the inevitable collapse, with socioeconomic upheaval. Do you disagree on this point?

Obama has to do more than move the numbers a bit for political coverage. He needs to move them substantially. If the ship is sinking because 1000 gallons of water are flooding the holds, but you say Obama is doubling his efforts and bailing 200 of those gallons instead one 100 gallons, but opening up new holes in the ship to let in more water, well, no matter what you think of the last Captain, this one will have the same result.

[Ddrak]

Attaching things to bills that have nothing to do with the orginal intent is one of the things I hate about the way Congress works. Both sides do it.

I'd go further and say it's probably the biggest problem Congress has because it allows so many other tactics that ride off it.

Dd

[Kulaf]

This is why we need a line item veto amedment to the Constitution.

[Partha]

No, we don't. Too many problems with THAT scenario, as well.

[Kulaf]

How so?

[Ddrak]

It's very easy for a President to completely gut a bill, or even change the entire intent, by vetoing specific lines.

I still maintain a line-item vote in the legislative branch would be much better and probably not even require constitutional change.

Dd

[Kulaf]

But that would require Congressional dicipline.....which if they actually had any would make it unnecessary.

[Partha]

I'd argue the problem is too MUCH discipline - if the parties would stop voting for or against legislation as blocs, it would mean much more would be done.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'd argue the problem is too MUCH discipline - if the parties would stop voting for or against legislation as blocs, it would mean much more would be done.

Which won't happen with the current "lifers" in the House and Senate. Both parties have evolved (devolved actually) into something that puts party preservation above the good of the people. Good legislation is thwarted to score political points, and bad legislation is rammed through to score political points. You want change? Vote any incumbent serving more than three terms out, on both sides. Get some fresh ideas in there.

[Ddrak]

A term limit for Senate/Congress probably wouldn't hurt, ya know...

Dd