I've always known that republicans are dumb, but they are dangerous also. The House is composed of inexperienced tea party malcontents from the back woods areas of America elected by dreamers who have little or no idea of how government works. Cutting off funding for Homeland
Security as the danger of terror incidents climbs, that's the republican mindset. That's how the republican terriorists are holding the country hostage as they seek to pull the strings of power.
There are enough republicans in the house to pass anything they want to but they are a divided lot
and republican governance is an empty promise, just more empty words from the GOP. They don't negotiate, they don't deal, they don't compromise, they either get their way or they lower the curtain on the whole show and sulk in the corner. We have got to break these republican dogs of sucking eggs, We have to change the way they do business for the sake of the country. Republicans don't live in the real world as you and I must, they float through life in a dream state making up their own facts and alternate reality as they go.
After all the useless talk what do the republican leaders in government give us, a 7 day extension to fund Homeland Security. What kind of a joke are conservatives, right wingers and tea party followers? Are you light weights learning on the job? Is this what you call governing? Can you
half wits do the job?
Where are the GW Bush republicans? Are you ashamed to be identified with your previous two term president and republican party leasder? Did he muck it up that badly? The answer is written in stone.
The people gave you control of the House and Senate last election. Who knows why? The GOP Congressmen are infantile losers, pip squeak piss ants who aren't smart enough to protect America from its enemies. We can not wait till 2016 to correct this misadventure. Until republicans grow up and act like adults they need to sit on the sidelines and let others control the fate of the country.
When the GOP isn't selling its votes to big business they are otherwise involved in fattening their own pockets with little gifts from the Koch brothers and big oil. Republicans are a completely disgusting bunch of misbehaving children and those of you who voted for them need to hang your heads in shame. Why do you hate the country so much?
Will Republicans Shut the Government Down Again? 7 Days From Now?
Lets jump in the time machine and go back to a few months before the 2014 mid terms and see how we got here.
The last government shutdown, almost a year ago, was no fun for anyone. Republicans in the House and Senate demanded that legislation to fund the
government simultaneously de-fund Obamacare; Democrats refused to go along. In the ensuing 16-day stalemate, many functions of the federal government were forced to shutter. Federal workers were furloughed or worked without pay, children were dis-enrolled from Head Start, and the U.S. economy lost about $24 billion. Heartbreakingly, the annual Assateague Pony Roundup was canceled. Veterans were forced to commit civil disobedience and break into
national monuments. (Okay, the shutdown was apparently fun for a few people: Nine months later, there were anecdotal reports of a D.C.-area baby boom.)
The shutdown was particularly hard on Republicans' image, as voters blamed them for the chaos. Once it was over, the GOP seemed to have learned its lesson about the price of obstinacy. Well these elephants have short memories and they are ready to shut it down again. In December, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate negotiated a budget deal setting spending levels through 2015, and in January both houses easily approved the funding for it—the first time since 2009 Congress had passed a real budget rather than a temporary spending authorization known as a continuing
resolution. A new era of rationality and calm seemed to have dawned.
But while the top line budget numbers set by the budget deal go through October 2015, the funding passed in January expires at the end of next month, on September 30. Both houses must pass new funding bills—likely in the form of a continuing resolution—to keep the government running. And that has raised the possibility of further shenanigans.
A well-placed House Republican source tells me GOP leadership is increasingly nervous about the potential for a rebellion on the funding bill. The
small but influential hard core of House conservatives were emboldened by what happened earlier this month with the border bill: A proposal favored by Speaker John Boehner to address the border crisis with emergency funding and expedited deportations had to be pulled when conservatives, egged on by Senator Ted Cruz, revolted. The legislation the House passed instead had a smaller price tag and would bar President Obama from continuing his policy
of allowing some young undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. The Democrat-led Senate, meanwhile, did not manage to pass its own version of border legislation at all, so Congress failed to act on the issue.
House conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Steve King considered the episode a major victory. Bachmann called it a highlight of her career. Now, Republican leaders are worried that conservatives will not go along with a simple government-funding bill unless it reflects their priorities.
One possibility, raised by Senator Marco Rubio in an interview with Breitbart this week, is attaching to the funding bill a mechanism to stop Obama
from taking executive action to liberalize immigration enforcement, as he has already done and threatens to do further. "There will have to be some sort of a budget vote or a continuing-resolution vote, so I assume there will be some sort of a vote on this," he told the publication. "I'm interested to see what kinds of ideas my colleagues have about using funding mechanisms to address this issue." Making government funding contingent on immigration-related legislation would instantly turn it into a highly charged partisan battle.
Another possibility is that re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank would be attached to the continuing resolution, either by Senate Democrats or by House Republican leadership. The formerly obscure lending fund has drawn the ire of the grassroots left and right, but mostly right, which charges that it constitutes a cronyistic corporate-welfare scheme. The bank's authorization runs out on September 30, the same day the federal government funding is set to expire. Business groups are lobbying hard for its renewal, but opposition has now gained momentum among conservatives: At this month's meeting of the Republican National Committee, a resolution opposing the bank was only narrowly defeated by the committee's members, 67 votes to 63. House conservatives might well refuse to agree to a government-funding bill that also reauthorizes the bank.
Some recent coverage has also highlighted comments by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who told Politico he planned to push through spending bills "with a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy." But McConnell was talking about what he would do if Republicans take the Senate next year. He was not referring to next month's legislation, which the pragmatic Kentuckian presumably wants to get passed as smoothly as possible.
All this is highly speculative. Officially, Republicans insist there will be no drama, although they aren't yet saying what the plan is for getting the funding bill passed. "The last thing we're going to do is shoot ourselves in the foot and jeopardize our chances of winning the Senate and gaining seats in the House," a senior House GOP aide told me Wednesday. A top Senate Republican staffer agreed when I asked about a possible shutdown:
"Absolutely not." Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee (and co-author of the budget agreement), told Business Insider, "No, there will not be a government shutdown"—although he then added, "If there is a government shutdown, it'll be because the Democrats brought it about."
Indeed, Democrats have ample incentive to stoke talk of a shutdown—or even to provoke one. Since last year's shutdown ended and the Obamacare rollout disaster ensued, their political fortunes have declined. On Wednesday, the Democrats' House campaign arm launched a website to remind the world that, prior to the 2013 shutdown, Republicans swore there was no possibility of such an outcome.
But not all Republicans are convinced the shutdown was such a disaster for them. A few weeks ago in Texas, I watched Cruz tell a roomful of conservative activists that the fight to defund Obamacare was actually a partial victory. "If you listen to Democrats, if you listen to the media—
although I repeat myself—they will tell you that fight last summer and fall didn't succeed," he said. But, he asked, "Where are we now today?" The
president's approval ratings are lower than ever, voters overwhelmingly dislike Obamacare, and
Republicans have a chance at winning a dozen or more Senate seats. Rather than suffer a setback in the shutdown (which he did not mention), Cruz said, "I believe we have laid the foundation for winning the war to repeal Obamacare."
If conservatives buy Cruz's logic, which they tend to do, the prospect of another shutdown might not scare them much. And that could mean Congress is headed for trouble. So there we have it, republicans are in charge and one nut job want to be senator from where else but Texas has mind control over the rest of the GOP sheeple in the House and Senate and Mr. Cruz wants to shut the government down. Each party has its nut jobs but the Democrats aren't lead by them, they are shuffeled off to the side as the more responsible members govern. Look up front, leading the pack and you find the republicans worst dummies leading the parade and running the show. I'm bothered by this but I know most of the voters in Amherst county aren't. They pulled the lever, touched the touchscreen and cast their vote for these crazies and the sad part is they will do it again and again.
Time machine back to Feb. 22th 2015
Stalemate in the war over President Barack Obama's unilateral actions on immigration has put the Republican-led Congress on a path to partially shutting down the Department of Homeland Security on February 27.
With just five legislative days to go before the funding deadline, the House and Senate are at a standstill and there are growing signs that Congress won't act in time.
Here are five reasons why, authored by Sahil Kapur.
1. House Republicans are more worried about caving on immigration than a shutdown
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is standing firmly with conservative hardliners who refuse to support anything that funds Obama's actions to shield nearly 5 million people from the threat of deportation. On Thursday, he wouldn't rule out a partial government shutdown, and said repeatedly the House had "done its job" by passing a bill to block Obama's actions and fund DHS. "But for Senate Democrats to simply block debate on a bill that funds many of their own priorities is as senseless and undemocratic as it is," Boehner told reporters. "If funding for Homeland Security lapses, Washington Democrats are going to bear the responsibility."
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) called it a "constitutional crisis" and said that if Republicans back down the "uproar" from conservatives would be greater than it was during the 2013 battle over Obamacare that led to a 16-day shutdown. Conservatives say that they're on firmer ground now than in 2013 because Obamacare was at least a duly-enacted law, while Obama's immigration moves were done by executive authority.
2. Senate Democrats are equally dug in against anything but a "clean" DHS bill
Senate Democrats have thrice filibustered the House-passed bill and insist they won't allow anything other than a "clean" measure to fund DHS, without the immigration provisions. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has admitted the obvious: the Senate is "stuck." "There is an easy way out of this unnecessary drama: Senator McConnell should heed the calls from Republicans and Democrats to take up the clean Homeland Security funding bill, pass it and move on," Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), said Thursday.
Reid's unyielding position is backed by the centrist Democrats who objected to Obama acting alone on immigration, such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Manchin told TPM he'd vote to unwind Obama's executive actions as a standalone bill, but not as part of DHS funding. "If it's concerning immigration ... put your concerns about the president's action and I'll vote on that. I'm not gonna play politics with Homeland Security. And I feel strongly about it," Manchin told TPM. "Enough with the politics."
3. Some Republicans are downplaying the impacts of a DHS shutdown
In a sign that they're bracing for a shutdown, Republicans are seeking to calm nerves by arguing that if the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money on February 27, it won't fully stop functioning. While thousands of workers would be furloughed, tens of thousands of essential security personnel would still be required to work and receive back pay once DHS is fully funded.
"I can't really predict" what will happen, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), a top target of Democrats in 2016, told TPM on Wednesday. "I do know the department won't shut down. No matter what happens, the department won't shut down."
In an ironic twist, one agency that would be largely unaffected by a DHS funding lapse is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, which is funded predominantly by user fees and tasked with processing Obama's work permits for undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement would suffer a hit as they rely on appropriations.
4. Republican senators reject House GOP calls to gut the filibuster
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a leader of the fight against Obama's actions, rebuffed House Republicans' calls to gut the filibuster to help advance their bill in the Senate. "I think the Senate rules wisely protect the minority," he said Thursday. "The answer, I believe, is not to change the Senate rules. The answer is for Senate Democrats not to be obstructionists."
Freshman Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) also dismissed that idea. "I don't think that's an option we're looking at now," he said. Of course, the filibuster isn't the GOP's biggest problem — Obama's veto pen is. He has repeatedly threatened to veto any bill that unwinds his immigration actions.
5. Congress is about to recess for a week with no viable plan
Lawmakers are slated to leave town for a week on Friday without any viable plan that can pass both chambers of Congress, let alone gain Obama's signature. When they return, on Tuesday, February 24, there will be four working days left before a shutdown. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers and senior aides surveyed by TPM suggested there was no fallback plan.
Sahil Kapur is TPM's senior congressional reporter and Supreme Court correspondent. His articles have been published in the Huffington Post, The Guardian and The New Republic. Email him at sahil@talkingpointsmemo.com and follow him on Twitter at @sahilkapur.
Supreme Court and The Ability To Reason
Supreme Court and The Ability To Reason
When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote to gut a century of campaign finance law, he assured the public that the unlimited corporate spending he was ushering in would “not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Because those authorized to give and spend unlimited amounts were legally required to remain independent of the politicians themselves, Kennedy reasoned, there was no cause for concern. Has anyone ever been more wrong that Justice Kennedy?
Just five years later, in a development that may be surprising only to Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision is reshaping how, how much and to whom money flows in Washington.
How the flood of money released by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed elections has been the subject of much discussion, but the decision’s role in allowing that same money to soak the legislative process has largely gone unreported. According to an extensive review of public documents held by the FEC, the U.S. Senate and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as interviews with lobbyists and policymakers, Kennedy's allegedly independent spending has become increasingly intertwined with lobbying and legislation -- the precise appearance of corruption campaign finance laws were meant to curb.
Politically active nonprofits, known as "dark money" groups for their ability to shield the identity of donors, and super PACs, which take unlimited sums of money but must disclose donors, have become dominated by lobbyists and other political operatives with close ties to leaders in Congress. Meanwhile, businesses with issues before Congress are pumping increasingly more money into the lobbyist-connected organizations.
The Supreme Court initially established a narrow definition of corruption in the 1970s, but Citizens United used it to blow open the gates that had been holding back corporate money. The 2010 decision came as the U.S. legislative system had evolved into a near parliamentary system of party-line voting and expansive party networks extending seamlessly from the Capitol to party headquarters to lobbying firms to outside political groups. Most top congressional legislators now have "leadership teams" -- informal but internally recognized groups of aides-turned-lobbyists who help raise funds.
To the lobbyists working in the system he helped create, Kennedy’s vision of political spending is unrecognizable. "I think Justice Kennedy's view on this was naive at best," one lobbyist told The Huffington Post, reflecting a rare bipartisan consensus. "People are going to do what's allowed under the law." Now that Justice Kennedy has totally messed up the political system in this country wouldn't it be nice if he at least apologized for his lack of understanding normal life. Can the people trust this man with the lifetime job and the declining ability to reason to do the things this country needs done?
The Supreme Court majority’s casual dismissal of the possibility that the Citizens United ruling could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption was necessary from a judicial perspective. Citizens United and a subsequent lower court ruling essentially hold that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting political spending independent of the candidates and parties. Yet the courts had long recognized Congress’ authority to regulate the financing of campaigns and the lobbying process in order to maintain the citizens’ trust in a democratic government. Where the choice had been between the sanctity of elections on the one hand and an unfettered interpretation of the First Amendment on the other, the courts chose to protect elections -- because without a trusted government, there is no First Amendment to speak of.
Kennedy and the other four justices, therefore, had to insist that independent political spending could not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption -- no threat of corruption meant no congressional authority to regulate that spending.
It is difficult, however, to look closely at the way laws are being made today without acknowledging at least an appearance of corruption.
Congressional aides asked all said that their own members of Congress were certainly not influenced in an untoward way by the corporate funds pumped into efforts to re-elect them, but that it was easy to see why the public might assume that to be the case. Five years later, the judicial logic of Citizens United has unraveled.
Political advisers closely associated with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) serve as both operatives on their behalf and lobbyists for corporate clients with business before Congress. The clients are encouraged to give generously to super PACs associated with the respective lawmakers, according to lobbyists familiar with the widespread strategy.
Trevor Potter, one of the top election lawyers in the country whose clients include Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and comedian Stephen Colbert, warns that this arrangement creates exactly the appearance of corruption that courts have used to justify campaign finance limits.
“It does make a significant difference to have lobbyists involved because then you have the very lobbyists who seek official action from the members being the conduits to the money,” Potter said. “It makes them valuable to their clients because they have a good relationship with the member, and they have a tight relationship with the member because they have access to the money from their clients.”
They're making use of the opportunity. A connected super PAC and nonprofit manned by lobbyists tied to Boehner have collectively received millions from interests in the insurance, drug, energy and other industries. Big-money groups associated with McConnell have been funded by coal companies, insurers and hospitals. Mining and gambling businesses have given directly to the super PAC associated with Reid, which is staffed by two Reid confidantes, one of whom advises the lobby shop that represents those companies while she also prepares to run the senator's 2016 re-election bid. All these companies have hired lobbyists who are connected to those same lawmakers as well as to the big-money groups and who are also working on issues over which Congress has much sway. The groups they fund have spent big to put and keep Boehner, McConnell and Reid in the driver’s seat.
Tony Podesta, a Democratic super lobbyist with the Podesta Group, told HuffPost that he has encouraged his corporate clients to give to super PACs and dark money nonprofits. “It’s unfortunate that we have the decision Citizens United, but as long as that’s the law of the land, then Democrats and Republicans are both active in these kinds of endeavors,” he said.
It seems 9 monkeys flipping a coin and counting the heads and tails to make the decision could give the Supreme Court a run for their money when it comes to reasoning.
Just five years later, in a development that may be surprising only to Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision is reshaping how, how much and to whom money flows in Washington.
How the flood of money released by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed elections has been the subject of much discussion, but the decision’s role in allowing that same money to soak the legislative process has largely gone unreported. According to an extensive review of public documents held by the FEC, the U.S. Senate and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as interviews with lobbyists and policymakers, Kennedy's allegedly independent spending has become increasingly intertwined with lobbying and legislation -- the precise appearance of corruption campaign finance laws were meant to curb.
Politically active nonprofits, known as "dark money" groups for their ability to shield the identity of donors, and super PACs, which take unlimited sums of money but must disclose donors, have become dominated by lobbyists and other political operatives with close ties to leaders in Congress. Meanwhile, businesses with issues before Congress are pumping increasingly more money into the lobbyist-connected organizations.
The Supreme Court initially established a narrow definition of corruption in the 1970s, but Citizens United used it to blow open the gates that had been holding back corporate money. The 2010 decision came as the U.S. legislative system had evolved into a near parliamentary system of party-line voting and expansive party networks extending seamlessly from the Capitol to party headquarters to lobbying firms to outside political groups. Most top congressional legislators now have "leadership teams" -- informal but internally recognized groups of aides-turned-lobbyists who help raise funds.
To the lobbyists working in the system he helped create, Kennedy’s vision of political spending is unrecognizable. "I think Justice Kennedy's view on this was naive at best," one lobbyist told The Huffington Post, reflecting a rare bipartisan consensus. "People are going to do what's allowed under the law." Now that Justice Kennedy has totally messed up the political system in this country wouldn't it be nice if he at least apologized for his lack of understanding normal life. Can the people trust this man with the lifetime job and the declining ability to reason to do the things this country needs done?
The Supreme Court majority’s casual dismissal of the possibility that the Citizens United ruling could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption was necessary from a judicial perspective. Citizens United and a subsequent lower court ruling essentially hold that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting political spending independent of the candidates and parties. Yet the courts had long recognized Congress’ authority to regulate the financing of campaigns and the lobbying process in order to maintain the citizens’ trust in a democratic government. Where the choice had been between the sanctity of elections on the one hand and an unfettered interpretation of the First Amendment on the other, the courts chose to protect elections -- because without a trusted government, there is no First Amendment to speak of.
Kennedy and the other four justices, therefore, had to insist that independent political spending could not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption -- no threat of corruption meant no congressional authority to regulate that spending.
It is difficult, however, to look closely at the way laws are being made today without acknowledging at least an appearance of corruption.
Congressional aides asked all said that their own members of Congress were certainly not influenced in an untoward way by the corporate funds pumped into efforts to re-elect them, but that it was easy to see why the public might assume that to be the case. Five years later, the judicial logic of Citizens United has unraveled.
Political advisers closely associated with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) serve as both operatives on their behalf and lobbyists for corporate clients with business before Congress. The clients are encouraged to give generously to super PACs associated with the respective lawmakers, according to lobbyists familiar with the widespread strategy.
Trevor Potter, one of the top election lawyers in the country whose clients include Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and comedian Stephen Colbert, warns that this arrangement creates exactly the appearance of corruption that courts have used to justify campaign finance limits.
“It does make a significant difference to have lobbyists involved because then you have the very lobbyists who seek official action from the members being the conduits to the money,” Potter said. “It makes them valuable to their clients because they have a good relationship with the member, and they have a tight relationship with the member because they have access to the money from their clients.”
They're making use of the opportunity. A connected super PAC and nonprofit manned by lobbyists tied to Boehner have collectively received millions from interests in the insurance, drug, energy and other industries. Big-money groups associated with McConnell have been funded by coal companies, insurers and hospitals. Mining and gambling businesses have given directly to the super PAC associated with Reid, which is staffed by two Reid confidantes, one of whom advises the lobby shop that represents those companies while she also prepares to run the senator's 2016 re-election bid. All these companies have hired lobbyists who are connected to those same lawmakers as well as to the big-money groups and who are also working on issues over which Congress has much sway. The groups they fund have spent big to put and keep Boehner, McConnell and Reid in the driver’s seat.
Tony Podesta, a Democratic super lobbyist with the Podesta Group, told HuffPost that he has encouraged his corporate clients to give to super PACs and dark money nonprofits. “It’s unfortunate that we have the decision Citizens United, but as long as that’s the law of the land, then Democrats and Republicans are both active in these kinds of endeavors,” he said.
It seems 9 monkeys flipping a coin and counting the heads and tails to make the decision could give the Supreme Court a run for their money when it comes to reasoning.
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
ACVDN
Amherst Democratic News
No comments:
Post a Comment