Posted on 12/16/2019 1:11:17 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Congress would raise the U.S. tobacco purchasing age to 21 and permanently repeal several of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) taxes under a massive government spending bill due to be released later on Monday, congressional sources said.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers hope to pass the $1.4 trillion spending bill before current government funding runs out on Saturday, to avoid a partial government shutdown and head off the kind of messy budget battle that resulted in a record 35-day interruption of government services late last year and early this year.
The legislation, worked out during weeks of negotiations between leading lawmakers and the Trump administration, denies President Donald Trump the spending increase he has sought to build his signature wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Most Democrats and some Republicans support a mix of improved physical barriers at the border, along with a combination of high-tech surveillance equipment and patrols by all-terrain vehicles and even horses.
They have mostly rejected Trump’s calls for at least $24 billion over the long run to build his much-touted wall, which he originally said Mexico would finance. Mexico rejected that idea. The wall’s price tag could escalate as the federal government is forced to acquire private lands for construction.
Negotiators settled on $7.6 billion for conducting next year’s census, which is done once every 10 years. That would be $1.4 billion more than Trump proposed.
The bill also allocates $25 million for federal gun violence research, following a decades-long suspension of such funding.
All of the money would fund government programs through Sept. 30, 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
This is the uni-party in action.
Tobacco at 21, abortion and drugs? free for all...
veto this hot mess and shut the government down and leave it down
“That would be $1.4 billion more than Trump proposed.”
GEE! I wonder where that extra $1.4 Billion will go? (He says with voice dripping in sarcasm)
21 to be considered competent to buy smokes. 16(or less to vote).
Makes sense to me! ;-)
Now we see what the “deal” was.
They had no intention of funding the wall but only as leverage in conference committee.
Look for the GOP-e Senate to roll over dead again.
Going after law abiding citizens while at the same time giving a favored class of law breakers a pass. This world is screwed up.
“The bill also allocates $25 million for federal gun violence research, following a decades-long suspension of such funding. “
Speaking of which I was in a box store today and noticed that a carton of popular brand cigarettes were going for over $80!
Do the Feds have a drinking age? I thought all that bs was by state?
“This is the uni-party in action.”
No border wall funding and Trump vetoes the bill. Shutdown over wall funding? That plays to Trump’s strength.
Trump shouldn't sign it. Maybe they can override a pocket veto, maybe not, but Trump shouldn't sign it without the money for the wall. Without a doubt there's way more than $24 billion in pork and favors in that budget, so, if they won't negotiate away some of their own goodies to give Trump a wall, don't sign it.
I say pocket veto rather than outright veto because it's a better head exploder that way. The dims would all be like "see, that's why he has to be impeached !! He's starving chipmunks and won't pay for fire hydrant mounted toilet paper dispensers in our cities". Just more fun all the way round.
JMHo
“They had no intention of funding the wall”
It is like professional wrestling - they only pretend to hurt each other.
The direct appropriation for wall building (through DHS) is the same as last year, around $1.4 billion.
But the NDAA (Defense budget) has already passed the House, with no restriction on the President doing again, what he did in 2019 - take billions from the Defense budget to build more wall.
So while the Dems need the political cover of being able to say that they gutted the President’s wall funding request (from the 5 he requested, down to the 1.4 in the baseline budget), the reality is that the details will allow him to actually spend billions more in 2020.
It is a very serious wall building effort, that will roughly/nearly finish contracting for all the barrier identified as needed in the comprehensive plan that DHS prepared in response to President Trump’s early (25 January 2017) Executive order (13767) to build the wall, and achieve full operational control of the Southern Border.
It is actually a strategic success in getting the wall built. That is why the Dems need an agreement to downplay the significance, while the votes go through. It is just a fig leaf offered, to get the votes through.
veto it
shut it down
ground all Congressional transportation
go to Mar-a-Lago
Have a wonderful Christmas with the family
“Trump shouldn’t sign it without the money for the wall”
I mentioned in a post after your’s (#15) that the backdoor for plentiful wall funding was left open in the Defense budget (NDAA). I think that is why the House had to vote out the Defense bill first - as a guarantee that the Dems could not double cross on the wall at the last minute.
So this is just Kabuki theater where the Dems are allowed to posture as if they stopped a bunch of wall funding as political cover, while the reality is that they knowingly left the door open for the President to get all the wall money he needs in 2020, in return for lots of pork barrel spending on their own pet projects.
Bottom Line: The needed barrier identified in the Comprehensive Plan (1,100 miles) for full operational control of the Southern border, is nearly completely funded with the appropriations bills going forward.
Essentially, the wall that was needed, is going to largely be finished, or funded and on contract, in President Trump’s first term.
It is a promise kept, despite incredible opposition.
Doing that and all the other crap that's played to help them in their district is a significant portion of the reason we've ended up in the cesspool national politics has become.
“deny “some” of Trump border wall funding”
...while purposefully leaving the door open to get the rest, and more, from the Defense budget, again this year.
If a state wants federal highway money, they have to use 21 for the drinking age. One of the few mistakes made by Reagan.
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.