Posted on 08/02/2011 11:23:45 AM PDT by GreaterSwiss
The debt ceiling deal will pass the Senate early this afternoon. No suspense there. But the vote will be worth watching for another reason: Three Republican Senate sources tell TWS that senators who vote against the deal will be ineligible to serve on the so-called “supercommittee” for deficit reduction that the legislation creates.
While there’s certain logic to such a policy, it could be self-defeating. Excluding those who vote against the debt deal will ensure that some of the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate Republican caucus, including most of its freshmen, will be reading about the committee’s activities in the newspaper rather than guiding its decisions. Among those who have already declared their opposition to the deal: libertarian-leaning senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul; Jim DeMint, the aggressive fiscal hawk from South Carolina; conservative reformers Ron Johnson from Wisconsin and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania; the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, Jeff Sessions; and Florida’s Marco Rubio, already one of the highest-profile conservatives in Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
He has defected to the “Washington DC Insiders” clubs and is now one of “them”. So sad he HAD so much promise.
Are you serious? I looked at YOUR link, followed the index to the subcommittee section and read on from there. I guess you didn’t look at your own link?
Here’s the verbiage in question:
17 (4) MEMBERSHIP.—
18 (A) IN GENERAL.—The joint committee
19 shall be composed of 12 members appointed pur
20 suant to subparagraph (B).
21 (B) APPOINTMENT.—Members of the joint
22 committee shall be appointed as follows:
23 (i) The majority leader of the Senate
24 shall appoint three members from among
25 Members of the Senate.
1 (ii) The minority leader of the Senate
2 shall appoint three members from among
3 Members of the Senate.
4 (iii) The Speaker of the House of Rep
5 resentatives shall appoint three members
6 from among Members of the House of Rep
7 resentatives.
8 (iv) The minority leader of the House
9 of Representatives shall appoint three mem
10 bers from among Members of the House of
11 Representatives.
To wit: party leaders appoint the members. While not unusual on its face, it does wrench away the ability for real minority groups (to wit: conservatives, Tea Party types) to participate. If you’re not favored by the power elite, you’re not getting a hand in deficit reduction - which, by today’s festivities, amounts to the “buy more votes” group.
It’s not a “Bill of Attainder”.
It’s just giving appointment power to those who are biased.
It’s not saying “Tea Partiers are denied participation.”
It’s just saying “those who don’t like Tea Partiers choose the players.”
Title IV, Section 401 Line 17 subparagraph (4) “membership”
Read from there, I could not copy and paste.
I see that as a huge problem. It’s more of the same old, same old that delivered us to this mess in the first place. Now, instead of kicking the can down the road, they’ve kicked it to a smaller group they can keep from infighting and control the outcome. That’s MHO, anyway. We’re absolutely screwed. If that sounds like I’m an alarmist, so be it but I only need my teeth kicked in once to realize that I shouldn’t trust the horse I’m standing behind.
As I understand it, whatever they come up with still has to eventually be approved by the House or it’s automatic across the board cuts. Either way, they will have to deal with the Tea Party and will have to deal with a bunch more after the 2012 election. Reid is a lame duck majority leader.
“It’s not a “Bill of Attainder”.
It’s just giving appointment power to those who are biased.
It’s not saying “Tea Partiers are denied participation.”
It’s just saying “those who don’t like Tea Partiers choose the players.”
“
OK...
It’s not a “Bill of Attainder”.
It’s just giving appointment power to those who are biased.
It’s not saying “Blacks are denied participation.”
It’s just saying “those who don’t like Blacks choose the players.”
Three Republican Senate sources tell TWS ...
///
so where do you get “blatantly false”?
granted, maybe all 3 sources lied. or TWS lied.
but, i see no reason to believe they did.
and certainly no evidence.
...except for a denial by McConnells spokesman.
that’s gold standard to you?
Boehner made a 72 hour pledge. he broke it.
he said the same thing about this as about TARP.
i don’t trust him or McConnell than i can throw them.
if this bill was the best we could do, with all the leverage we had, then they are incompetent or liars.
your picture is worth 100,000 words!
perfect.
doing nothing, and holding the line NOW on spending,
could have avoided turning us into Greece.
they just moved us 2 years closer to the cliff,
cutting 2% out of the 40% Obama raised it.
...i hope that our children do like Iceland,
and REFUSE TO PAY.
i hope they cut ALL social security, etc.,
to the generation who refused to pay their OWN debt,
and tried to pass it on to their children !!!
Some of us are tired of being lied to or being told that it’s “the best we can expect”. BS! If our founders adopted that way of thinking we wouldn’t exist today.
Some of us expect to elect people who will ACTUALLY represent us and go to Washington to do as they say they will, which is the will of the people.
///
well said !!!
with enough people like you, there is still hope!
Yup. Not saying I approve, just saying there is a difference - subtle, yes, ultimately meaningless, yes, but a difference.
On the Dark Side—all it takes is one RINO switching sides for a tax increase to be proposed by the committee. Thus having one or two Tea Party members out of Six solves nothing—you really need six tea party members out of six to guarantee a tax increase is not recommended.
On the Bright Side—This committee has no ability to pass laws-it merely comes up with a recommendation to be subject to vote without amendment in the House and Senate . If the committee does come up with a tax increase plan, all the House has to do is vote the proposal down and the committee’s tax increases are dead.
However, if the recommendation is voted down, the House and Senate would have to then live with $1.2 Trillion in “cuts” 50% to defense, 50% to non-defense split evenly over 2013-21. None of these cuts are in 2012 which is a big problem. In general, the deal causes very little changes in 2012—in the early years the “cuts” just limit the rate of growth is spending which isn’t much help.
of COURSE it’s not written down in the bill “NO TEA PARTY ALLOWED”!
this bill was written VERY well, with subtle enticements, like allowing congress to “DEEM” the 2012 and 2013 budgets passed.
do you believe someone like Jim DeMint will be on it?
you believe McConnell’s spokemen, over three sources?
Quite a sight, isn't it? It's like they have to get their daily dose of tizzy. They wake up in the morning wondering who and what they are supposed to hate today.
Problem is our side tends to operate assuming such things will be laid out in black-and-white, while they have mastered the shades of gray.
As you were. Don’t let this interfere with your hysteria.
**************************************
12 members of the Lords of Congress will be able to represent whichever interests they choose. 523 of the Congressional Commons will be purely ornamental.
This is a putsch.
If you want to kill the current GOP, then remember not in November of 2012, but in the congressional primary elections of those who supported this. Vote against the incumbent in the primary, and make sure there's opposition to the incumbent in the primary.
Well, the way you folks are behaving isn’t exactly the Carnegie method for getting what you want....
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.