Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (61465)	12/13/2002 12:52:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Democrats were in control of the Senate for 40 years how was the committee money shared? Not sure, and the article, as you know, does not spell it out. We can watch for the fight in January. With a new Majority Leader. Lott can't survive the shelling he is getting. And it will get worse.

To: KLP who wrote (61465)	12/13/2002 10:18:47 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Any idea of how this money was shared by each party historically? Karen, you did not ask me so it's a bit rude of me to interrupt your conversation with Bill, and also to say that I really don't know the past. I think, however, something else is at stake here and we will learn more about it as things go forward. Apparently, Leahy and Hatch, the Dem and Rep chairs, respectively, of the Judiciary, made deals with one another that kept the split at roughly 50-50 whichever party controlled the Senate. Sounded fair given the closeness of the vote and the anticipation that it could reverse itself on a dime--other senators changing parties either way. Apparently, Rick Sanatorium (sp?), the Rep senator from Pa and one of Lott's confidants and somehow in a position to decide such things, decided that none of the committees should negotiate their own allocations of such money but should adhere to the caucus decision which, he said, was 2/3 1/3. Who knows just how accurate all this is, so far as reporting? Each side has something to gain by defaming the other. And each side has something more to gain in the allocation of resources. I doubt, however, that the 2/3 to 1/3 rule will stick. It's too publicly damaging and gives the dems too many opportunities to filibuster the final organization. But who knows.