Posted on 11/06/2015 9:04:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Senate Democrats launched a third consecutive filibuster of the bipartisan defense appropriations bill yesterday, once again blocking consideration of legislation that would fund the United States military and pay members of our armed forces. Yes, it's okay to be thoroughly perplexed by this development. Remember, the ostensible reason that Democrats have engaged in this obstruction over recent months -- which also entailed filibustering the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill -- was to exploit the troops and veterans as leverage to force Republicans to agree to higher federal spending on unrelated matters. It was a cynical play, but thanks in part to President Obama's hyper-partisan veto, it worked. Leadership in both houses huddled together and hammered out a noxious budget deal that raised spending caps on both defense and domestic discretionary spending, relying on gimmicks to "pay for" the increased outlays. In other words, Democrats got what they wanted. And yet, here they are filibustering the defense bill again, after the passage and signing of the budget compromise. Why? I spoke to several Senate Republican aides last evening who were mystified by Democrats' knee-jerk intransigence. The idea, it seems, is that Harry Reid is paranoid that Republicans will pass the defense bill at heightened spending levels first, then renege on the contours of the new budget agreement by passing other spending measures at lower-than-agreed-to levels as a continuing resolution. Senate Republicans have no intention whatsoever of doing this, I'm told (GOP leaders called this "delusional" and a "conspiracy theory"), but that's the excuse Democrats have conjured to justify their latest obstructionist gambit.
One source told me he suspects Reid's real goal is to run out the clock until the December 11 deadline to fund the government is imminent. This would force the Senate to roll all of its separately-crafted appropriations bills (all 12 of which have been passed out of committee for the first time in six years, by the way) and roll them into a giant "omnibus" spending bill. This serves the purpose of undermining "regular order," in which Congress spends taxpayer money according to the normal rules, along a normal schedule. Harry Reid's Democrats totally abandoned regular order when they held the majority, often declining to even propose any annual budget at all, despite their legal obligation to do so. Today's Democratic Party is bizarrely invested in a governance-by-crisis model, wherein they retain the ability to use manufactured "emergencies" to help advance their ideological agenda -- secure in the knowledge that when push comes to shove, much of the media will help them blame the resulting dysfunction and brinksmanship on Republicans (who are rarely blameless, I should add). Their latest filibuster takes this legislative nihilism to a new level, managing to draw the ire of Sen. Lamar Alexander, a mild-mannered, cooperation-minded Republican from Tennessee. He took to the Senate floor yesterday to warn his Democratic colleagues that their maneuvering is ushering in an era of even more acute partisan acrimony, vowing to help take the lead on scorched-earth tactics if this continues:
Alexander Blasts Senate Dems for Blocking Troop Funding for a 3rd Time
What [Senate Democrats] propose to do is block our moving to the appropriations bill for the defense of this country for the third time – for the third time. And there is no justification to do that. You are going to set in motion an irreversible trend of partisanship in the Senate – and I am going to lead it...[Budgeting and appropriating money] is our job. And they blocked it twice. And they're getting ready to block it again with a vote today. I'm saying, 'don't go there.' All of these Democratic provisions don't have to be in...any of the [spending] bills because we have the majority, and you don't. So if you're going to play that kind of game, we can play it too. I'm not one who usually does, but I am able to play. I'm able to play, or I wouldn't have gotten here.
Democrats hate our troops. They want to undermine them.
Hey, if the “nuclear option” was good enough for Harry Reid and the socialists, it should be good enough for Mitch and the progressives.
They sure do and I despise them along with that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Mitch is the bitch of Reid. He’s one of them.
agreed, if only Yertel would do it, don't hold your breath, but we can hope.
Here is how this works:
McConnell revises the rule to allow for a simple majority to end a filibuster.
Republicans finally kill Obama’s agenda and get CONSERVATIVE things done.
This willingness and ability to stop Obama and advance Conservative causes establishes credibility with the broad spectrum of GOP AND Independent voters.
The GOP wins the White House and regains the Senate in 2016.
If you learn to fight and win, you can stop fretting over “what if the libs get back in power?”.
Send them all to Syria.
I thought that they could not filibuster budget bills?
Well, these days bills require 100% democrat support to even get past committe
obammy wants to shut down Gitmo.
This forbids that.
This stupid very little boy with elephant ears is one serious a-hole.
Why couldn’t they just reinstitute the filibuster if/before the Dems take over the Senate again? (which look likely in 2016, as we have so many seats to defend)
It must be wonderful being a Democrat. You can get away with anything and there are absolutely no consequences.
Coincidentally, the same goes for Babies, Kittens and Puppies.
No. They want them dead. During or after their service.
Not our call.
The new Majority leader get’s to make that call.
What percent of military people are Democrats? I don’t know: I would guess 33 percent.
KY is trying to rid itself of its McC, or is it? AZ wants its McC for life.
Definitely, Mitch should do the “nuclear option” and make bh0 either sign or veto. That puts the onus on him. Mitch should have done that right after the new Republican Senate majority was sworn in.
Obstructionists.
That RINO should have reversed the super majority requirement when he took the senate over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.