home

Who Votes For This Deal?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:53:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Reid says he has a deal:

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, has tentatively signed off on the budget deal being negotiated with top Republicans by the White House, moving Congress closer to taking up a measure that could pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support and be signed by President Obama, averting a fiscal calamity.

Not clear where the votes come from in the House. Especially when you consider:

The negotiators appeared to be having a hard time defining what kind of cuts would occur at the end of the year if Congress failed to act on the committee’s recommendations.

If they have not figured that out, how do they have a "deal?"

< Progressive Caucus Chair Rejects Debt Ceiling Capitulation | Declare Defeat But Promise To Fight >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Votes For This Deal? | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Monty, Monty (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    I'll take what's behind curtain #3.  

    It's a free for all! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    Arrogant idiots vote for this deal thinking that they won't get caught trashing the country and economy.

    The way things are going on the Hill they are going to be passing bills that have a title like "healthcare" and there will be nothing specific in the bills at all.  The will write bills the way that they write their campaign materials - but the bills will be even less specific.

    Way to run a country guys!

    I think (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:34:10 PM EST
    I think they should vote for it so they can figure out what's in it...

    ...kinda like they did with the health "care" bill.

    Really! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    GOD FORBID we who are about to die as a result of this monstrosity (only somewhat metaphorically speaking) should be permitted to know what's in it before it's a moot point.

    Parent
    Given a five (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    for the laying out of the horrible truth of our less than lustrous professional left pasts.

    Parent
    Boehner is balking at what Reid (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    signed off on.  Balking at triggered military spending cuts.  I just love it when Boehner fights for me on at least one front that feeds my family, while Obama has thrown me under every bus on the road.  Feck, someone pass me a Vicodin or something pain numbing.

    Well, that's something I suppose (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:25:44 PM EST
    That I kinda, sorta know someone who may benefit.

    Parent
    Mullen says military paychecks (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    will happen Aug. 1 but he nothing after that.  Also says cutback should happen in Afghan.

    Parent
    Even everyone in the military knows (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:07:05 AM EST
    if we just got rid of two wars money wouldn't be such a problem.  We have no reason to be in Iraq at all.  No matter when we finally completely leave, we will leave an ugly power vacuum and there will be infighting in Iraq and people will die.  We never should have invaded Iraq to begin with, and a peaceful solution for who runs that country was never a possibility.

    Parent
    As Doug Henning used to say: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    "Everything's possible in the world of magic!"

    Where the hell are the singing cats?

    'Cuz the fat lady is still stuffing her face at the buffet.  May I get some hush-puppies, please?

    Don't let the Republicans race to NO first (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    If this bill dies from lack of support, I want it to do so because it lacks Democratic support.

    Well... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    ...I think this is a NYT compositional issue. It reads to me like they're blending reporting from the day with a breaking news headline (Reid signs off). All day the (reported) major sticking point has been those triggers. So my guess is they're using hedging and verb tense to indicate that fact without necessarily implying whether the issue itself had been resolved when Reid agreed to the deal/agreement. NYT author hiding their ignorance with vague grammatical construction. So in my opinion it's still unresolved whether there's a set-in-stone deal that Reid has agreed to. In 24 hours it will not be as unresolved.

    Not really (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    Boehner is trying to negotiate lower defense cuts. What deal then?

    Parent
    I think that may be a good point... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    ...if Boehner's negotiations are still ongoing, perhaps they have a range of ratios and Reid agreed to that entire range so he could get to work informing his caucus while negotiators figured out where to land in that range. If so, that was stupid, since why would the Republicans accept anything but their end of the agreed on spectrum, if Reid had given a blanket "yes" to the entire spectrum of options?

    Are you absolutely sure that the Boehner defense negotiations are actually still ongoing? Or is that something that also could've been the last thing decided, and so the breaking news of THAT sticking point came out at the same time as Reid's announcement of signing on to the deal?

    The NYT article was written to be intentionally vague because the author didn't know what was what. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Reid agreed to a framework and now the Republicans are just waiting out the clock to get their end of the framework as a the final bill. That would be in keeping with recent history.

    Or, Boehner could just be getting back at Obama's late-night call last week for $400 billion more in revenue by springing this on him after the deal went to Reid. A plethora of possible pinatas.

    Parent

    More bad reporting? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    Failure by that committee would trigger automatic cuts in programs beloved by Democrats and Republicans, respectively, unless Congress later this year passed a Constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets.

    That makes no sense, since Congressional passage of an amendment is meaningless, does not make it law without ratification.

    Conversely, if Congress is going to say -- for the first time in hundreds of years since the Constitution became law -- that Congressional passage of an amendment is sufficient to have the force of law, then we finally have the ERA.

    I think not.

    So I think that this also suggests that the  reporting is problematic on at least that process, and perhaps much more.

    Parent

    The congressional vote starts (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    the process of a constitutional amendment, which my guess is would have an excellent chance of passing the requisite number of state legislatures, which is why the Dems. are agin' having a vote on it in Congress. (Because it's such a terrible, terrible idea.)

    That's all.  To paraphrase Ehud Barak's remark about Iran, the Gopers may be deluded, but they ain't stupid.


    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#5)
    by sas on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    Democratic Progressives in the house might vote against this monstrosity.  I hope so!

    Ezra Klein earlier quoted Gxxx (sp?), leader of (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    progresive caucus, as saying his members were very upset, this was an attack on the well-being of the middle class, they could not support undermining important programs, etc., BUT the next step is to undo the damage of this legislation.

    Meaning they're already caved.

    Hope they'll have some staffers read the damn bill.

    Parent

    And I hope they hire good professional (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    moving companies when they have to truck all their furniture and other belongings back to their home districts after they lose their seats in Congress next year.

    It can be such a harangue when the movers damage your stuff.

    Parent

    Earlier, HuffPo said Boehner had scheduled House (none / 0) (#11)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    to open at 10:30 for moringing business and at noon for legislative business.

    Might be a time to schedule some calls, if possible.

    Monday at 10:30 am - in the morning. Eeek. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    Oh, for Edit! Or stopping to proofread....

    Parent
    Who Votes For This Deal? | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment