Posted on 02/26/2025 1:22:07 PM PST by RandFan
Tuesday’s big win for Speaker Mike Johnson might not last long.
House Republicans spent weeks in painstaking negotiations before delivering a budget blueprint for “one big, beautiful bill.” Now Senate Republicans are preparing to tear it apart.
Despite a razor-thin 217-215 House vote Tuesday, GOP senators indicated Wednesday they would not accept Speaker Mike Johnson’s fiscal framework as-is — heralding a rough road for President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda on Capitol Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The budget barely made it out of the house. One (1) Repub voted against the bill. Why? It would increase the debt some 20 trillion dollars over 10 years.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4300555/posts
Yeah, I know Trump wants this, but lets be real. Congress is gonna have to do better than this.
People need to call their Senators and remind them who is President.
____________________________________
Maybe. And then those Senators need to remind callers that it’s Congress, not the president, that sets the budget.
Trump will sign whatever they send up.
Budgets (and other important bills) always go to a House/Senate conference and differences are settled there.
Big yawn.
Let’s ask the magic eight ball. Is there a betting line? I might wager ‘fiscal conservative’ could well be the last refuge of scoundrels. Before they begrudingly do what is Right.
What we USED to do was have a Senate of the states (appointed by the legislatures) that respected the House's "power of the purse" to introduce spending bills. The Senate, selected by the statue legislatures, would have gone along with the House's spending bills, because the House was made up of the representatives of the same people who elected their state legislatures.
Today, the Senate operates in opposition to the House and apparently does NOT respect the House's power to introduce spending bills. The Senate often guts unrelated House bills to amend them into Senate sending bills that they force back onto the House to pass (Obamacare was one such bill).
Now, we have a Senate that demands that the House send THEM a spending bill that THEY want. What we have is a broken Senate that is disconnected from their original purpose.
-PJ
Who cares what they want? They aren’t in charge.
Do what Trump wants or quit. Or you will be primaried.
F GOP Senators.
This is expected. Now they go in and negotiate. But I really wish our side would communicate better. The cuts in Medicaid would be a reduction to the states, not individuals. The states can easily make up the difference.
Preach it PJ. Dustbin the 17th.
Behaved well? They voted NO on 1 or 3 of the nominees.
Those “Republican” Senators aren’t going to be flying to Washington, DC after their next election cycle if they don’t get on board.
Politico?
How are they still in business without the USAID money?
And why was US Agency for INTERNATIONAL Development money ever given to entities within these United States?
Don't even get me started on Treaties. Our founders were SOB independent men. They argued and compromised and did one heck of a job. Maybe a refocus is in order?
I'll repost a few links to one of my past screeds on this subject.
No founding father envisioned or argued the President had equal power to the CongressNo founding father envisioned the Senate to be what it is today. They envisioned the Senate to be the arm of the states in the federal government. The President was the executive of the federation of states, not the ruler of the people. It was the role of the governors of the several states to lead the people of their states.
It was the role of the federal Executive to manage the relationships between the states, to be the voice of the nation in foreign relations with other countries, and to be the commander-in-chief of the military during armed conflicts.
The President's constituents were the governors, not the people. The states were the sovereign governments closest to the people. That's why the Senate was designed to be appointed by their respective state legislatures: 1) to confirm the President's nominations for executive branch offices and judicial picks, and 2) to ratify treaties that the President negotiated with foreign governments.
Why do you think the Constitution has the "compacts clause" in Article I Section 10? The Senate was supposed to act like a "United Nations" general assembly where the ambassadors from the several states would meet to discuss common interests at the suggestion of their state legislatures. Groups of states would join together in a joint venture that benefited their combined states -- this is why the Constitution has a "compacts" clause, so that the entire Congress can approve a joint venture between several states negotiated in the Senate on the legislatures' behalf. Then the President, as the Executive of the states, would sign the compact into law.
It was the several states, through the Senate, that were supposed to "lead" the President, not the other way around. This is why Article IV Section 4 says "and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)..." The states were expected to communicate to their Senators to convey to the President what the states were going to do. They were not asking the President for permission, they were informing the President of their intended actions.
So the founding fathers expected the states to be first in power working with the Executive and their Senators; with the Executive as Speaker of the nation to foreign governments and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to be second in power; with the Congress making compacts between the states, authorizing and appropriating the monies for these compacts, and ratifying treaties with foreign nations third; and the Supreme Court last.
This is a post of mine citing James Madison in Federalist #43 discussing the role of states in federalism and republicanism. Again, the states were expected to band together to police themselves against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence, and not depend on the federal government to get involved on their behalf. A Senate of the states would be crucial in making this happen at the federal level.
-PJ
With friends like this , who needs enemies?
Did the Senate win in a landslide across the country? Now is not the time to defeat him.
For as long as I can remember, the Senate has always been great at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I am very angry with my senators. In this state (Kansas), Trump got 100,000 and 50,000 more votes than the senators. I asked them why they think we want their agenda over Trump’s. I guess I shouldn’t hold me breath waiting for them to answer.
Well, DUH!
What’s surprising about this?
Has everyone forgotten the years 2017-2020?
The Senate GOP is right on schedule for obstructing anything Trump...
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.