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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (201097)	12/2/2010 1:30:51 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 362469

The House gets clever on tax cuts debate by Joan McCarter Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:26:03 AM PST In case you missed it, David had a very good explanation of the House using procedure very cleverly in this morning's TIC. The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III was originated in the House and passed back in March. (And remember, if there are going to be revenue provisions in this thing, it has to have originated in the House, so that's important.) It then went to the Senate, and sat around until September. When it came to the floor, the Senate amended it, passed the amended version, and sent it back to the House. Now, the House plans to take up the Senate amendment, which it does under a rule governing debate, just as it would with any bill. And if you want to, you can write the rule for the bill to disallow any amendments to it, and that's just what they've done with this one. But writing a rule to disallow a motion to recommit is just not done. It could be done, but it would be a very, very serious infraction against the rights of the minority. So it's not done. But guess what? Because this is a bill that's already passed and left the House, and the only changes in it are Senate-made amendments, it can't be recommitted, which means there can't be a motion to recommit. Why not? Well, when a motion to recommit passes, it technically sends a bill back to the committee that reported it out. But this bill has already left the custody of the House when it passed the first time. That material can't be recommitted, and neither can the Senate material, which was never in the hands of the House committee in the first place. So by definition, it can't be recommitted. The only thing that can happen is that the House can agree to the Senate amendment, disagree to it, or agree to it with additional amendments. That's it. No recommittal. And only the amendments the Rules Committee allows. And what amendment will the Rules Committee allow? An amendment to strip out the current contents of H.R. 4853, and replace it with the new, Middle Class Tax Relief Act. Ta-da! And thus, we're getting a vote in the House on extending current tax rates for all but the top two percent. The tricky rule that allowed for this has passed, and with another procedural vote on the debate rules, the House is off to the races on doing the right thing with this vote. It'd be the simplest thing in the world for the Senate to take this bill, offer it on the floor, and dare Republicans to vote against it. Presuming that it passes the House, of course. Stay tuned. dailykos.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (201097)	12/2/2010 1:44:47 PM
From: SiouxPal	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 362469

This Ain't Rocket Science: Ads. Everywhere. Now. Here's the taglines: 1. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want poor people to be able to eat." 2. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want you to not have feces on your food." 3. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want the men and women who rescued people after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to get healthy." 4. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want firefighters and police officers to be able to get fair pay." 5. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want all Americans to be able to openly serve in the military." 6. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want women and men to make the same wage for the same work." 7. "Republicans want billionaires to be richer. We want to make the nation safe from nuclear weapons." This even leaves out vaguely controversial things like the DREAM Act. You wanna start framing things for 2012, Democrats? You begin now. You let everyone know where Republicans stand. And you at least try to pretend you stand for something else. rudepundit.blogspot.com