Solyndra Language Paves Way for CR Passage in House

National Journal ^ | September 22, 2011 | 4:43pm, Updated: September 22, 2011 | 5:30 pm | Susan Davis, Billy House and Amy Har

[cc2k]

House Republicans have found the path to passage for a short-term bill to fund the federal government: Add language intended to embarrass the Obama administration.

Following a lengthy closed-door meeting, House Republicans emerged with a strategy to keep intact the continuing resolution the House defeated on Wednesday by adding a $100 million offset targeting the government program involved in the loan guarantees awarded to the failed energy company Solyndra, the solar-energy firm backed by more than $500 million in government loan guarantees and previously supported by President Obama. The company has since declared bankruptcy and is the focus of a federal investigation.

<snip>

House Republicans largely voted against the bill because the overall $1.043 trillion CR price tag exceeded Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s, R-Wis., blueprint passed by the House early this year. But House GOP leadership aides were confident those conservatives would be mollified with the inclusion of the Solyndra language. A vote was on track for Thursday evening.

[cc2k]

Call your Congress Critters now. I don't think the vote has happened yet.

I emphasized two words in that last paragraph. I hope these leadership clowns have actually talked to the ones that voted against this last night and know before they start the voting whether the votes are there.

I am glad they did not capitulate and accept the Democrat demands to remove the spending cut offsets for the FEMA funds.

Hey, Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, et. al. How about this. The conservatives who voted against this did so because you're spending more money in September than you promised in April. Why not reduce the spending levels to the $1.019 trillion (annual number) that was passed in April. Why spend the extra $24 billion?

If the TEA Party types are "mollified" and agree to this blatantly political $100 million move, instead of the $24 billion in spending cuts they were asking for, they really deserve some serious negative feedback. That's too big a compromise, IMO.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Some fear might help.

[zeugma]

If the TEA Party types are "mollified" and agree to this blatantly political $100 million move, instead of the $24 billion in spending cuts they were asking for, they really deserve some serious negative feedback. That's too big a compromise, IMO.

Agreed. They should vote no until another $100B is cut. Add $50B each time they bring it up for a vote.