|
I hadn't heard about that second bill. Does anybody know of a good article on the subject?
Sorry, I heard about it on the radio news this morning during songs, but missed the sponsors or anything about it. I just remember that one of the co-sponsors was from Oregan.
Edit: According to the House website, it is Rep. Greg Walden from Oregan and Rep. Brian Baird from washington who are sponsoring it.
|
|
WSJ Op-ed on it.
Voters want enough time to debate bills. Nancy Pelosi doesn't.
By JOHN FUND
Polls show overwhelming agreement outside the Beltway that it's more important for Congress to get health-care reform done right than done quickly. A Polling Company survey conducted last month found 95% agreeing that members of Congress shouldn't vote on any bill they haven't read in full.
That's why the bipartisan duo of Rep. Brian Baird, a Washington Democrat, and Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, came up with the "72-hour resolution," which would require all non-emergency legislation to be posted online, in final form, for at least 72 hours prior to a floor vote. "Members of Congress are too often asked to make decisions on bills that can be longer than telephone books and are only given a few hours to actually read them," says Rep. Baird. "Both parties are guilty, and both should stop doing it."
Although Barack Obama campaigned last year for transparency and openness in government, their idea has languished in committee since June. It has 67 Republican and 31 Democratic co-sponsors-a rare show of bipartisanship. Normally, bills can't be considered for a floor vote until House leadership schedules them. That's why Messrs. Baird and Walden filed a discharge petition to dislodge their bill from committee this week. If a majority of members (218) sign it, their proposal can be voted on over the objections of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But the notion of a 72-hour waiting period is anathema to Democrats who fear that they are running out of time to pass a sweeping health-care bill. This week, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told Bloomberg News that "the goal" is to finish the entire health-care debate "over the next six weeks or so, maybe sooner." The six-week deadline is critical because it would mean a health-care bill would pass into law just before voters in Virginia and New Jersey go to the polls on Nov. 3 to elect a governor and state legislators. Right now, the GOP leads in both states and nervous Democrats see that as a measure of their stalled health-care reform plans.
So it appears Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress have decided to ram a bill through as quickly as possible. On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted 12 to 11 to reject a proposal to require a 72-hour waiting period and a full scoring of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office before the committee casts any final vote. Only one Democrat, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, voted for the waiting period. Chairman Max Baucus said the idea would delay a vote on the final bill for two weeks and he didn't want to waste another moment.
On the House side, Mrs. Pelosi has told reporters that members will have "a period of time that is sufficient" to consider the final health-care language. But she clearly doesn't want her hands tied. House leadership aides were stationed on the House floor where members must go to sign the 72-hour discharge petition. Mr. Baird acknowledged that leadership aides were strongly discouraging his fellow Democrats from signing. As of yesterday, 173 members had affixed their names, but they included only five of the 31 Democratic co-sponsors.
Mr. Baird isn't phased. "If Americans contact their representative and encourage him or her to sign this discharge petition, I'm confident it will become law," he told me.
Mr. Baird, a six-term incumbent, isn't a natural rebel against his party's leadership. He supports health-care reform that expands coverage to the uninsured and would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. As a licensed clinical psychologist, he has 23 years of experience treating patients suffering from brain injuries as well as victims of strokes and cancer.
But Mr. Baird says health care is one of many issues that's simply too important to be rushed through. He notes that when Republicans ran the House in 2003 they jammed through a giant prescription drug entitlement in a late-night session when clearly many members didn't understand the bill. More recently, this year the final language of the stimulus bill appeared at midnight one night, giving members only 12 hours to review it before a final vote. Then in June, Mrs. Pelosi brought a global-warming bill to the floor only 16 hours after a 316-page amendment rewriting much of it was introduced.
It's time for Congress to change its ways. Haste can make for more than waste and lead to populist outrage that often takes on a life of its own. That happened after this year's stimulus bill included the infamous provision authorizing executives of bailed-out AIG to get retroactive bonuses.
But despite such train wrecks, there are still members who dismiss calls for calm deliberation. Sen. Kent Conrad, (D., N.D.) who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, claims that go-slow proposals wouldn't make any difference because only 5% of Americans will be able to understand the legalese in bills. Politico.com reports him as saying: "Anybody who thinks that is going to be transparent to the American people is really not telling it like it is."
Mr. Baird admits to being irked by such arguments. "It's nonsense," he told me. "One of the reasons voters are so upset today is that they get the sense they aren't being trusted to make their own judgment about what goes on in Washington."
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.
Yep, "O" is no better than "W," or any of the others. The Who said it best: "Meet the new boss: same as the old boss." The only thing that's changed is which "side" is doing all the griping now.
I think this sums up everything right here.
Yeah, especially because the first comment is along the lines of "Abortions are murder! Democrats are worse than Hitler!" -- and then scroll down for more brain-numbing idiocy, like "Republicans start wars! They're worse than Hitler!" It's a sad state.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think this sums up everything right here.
You would say that since you are, in fact...
the philosphical successor of Hitler's third cousin, Holger, who mostly just lived on a farm and liked to dress up sheep as Bavarian farm girls.
Does that still constitute a godwin?
(Also, link was hilarious)
I can't tell you how many times I have discussed politics ith someone and had them say something that just caused me to turn and tell them that they were making my case for me.
Yup.
This is my personal favorite. You never know where a fanboy will show up.
Dude, that's freakin' awesome. I need to send my brother that link ASAP.
|
|
This is my personal favorite. You never know where a fanboy will show up.Dude, that's freakin' awesome. I need to send my brother that link ASAP.
I'm glad you like it.
|
|
I think this sums up everything right here.Yeah, especially because the first comment is along the lines of "Abortions are murder! Democrats are worse than Hitler!" -- and then scroll down for more brain-numbing idiocy, like "Republicans start wars! They're worse than Hitler!" It's a sad state.
Which is funny because Democrats have presided over the start of four of the five major wars of the 20th century and most rational Republicans advocate for a medical exception in any abortion ban. I myself define myself as pro-choice, I just would prefer that the choice is life.
You can't imagine how much flak I take from abortion rights activists over that. I once had a girl at the university tell me that if I hoped the woman chose to have the baby then I couldn't be pro-choice. Apparently, to her the only acceptable choice was abortion.
Which is funny because Democrats...
Um, that's what I'm talking about. "No! My side is better than your side!"
We can cherry-pick examples of hypocrasy from both sides all day long; people intentionally finding them only in one direction is exactly the problem.
Maybe both the Dems and Repubs should just step up and start disavowing the crazy extreme elements in their own partys? I'm not talking hard-Right or hard-Left rational views that others may not agree with... I mean the real nutbars. Let the looneys go off and form their own minority parties, and then the big two can maybe get some serious discussion and possibly even work done.
|
|
Which is funny because Democrats...Um, that's what I'm talking about. "No! My side is better than your side!"
We can cherry-pick examples of hypocrasy from both sides all day long; people intentionally finding them only in one direction is exactly the problem.
But you missed the rest of my post apparently. I also pointedout how raical anti-abortion Republicans also get it wrong becaue most rational people on both sides support at least limited abortion. Therefore Ipointed out the hypocrasy of the "Republican" position also.
Besides, it's historiacal fact.
World War I-Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
World War II-FDR, Democrat
Korean War-Harry Truman, Democrat
Vietnam War-Either JFK or LBJ depending on wich historians you listen too, but both were Democrats
Persian Gulf War-George H.W. Bush, Republican
But you missed the rest of my post apparently. I also pointedout how raical anti-abortion Republicans also get it wrong becaue most rational people on both sides support at least limited abortion.
Didn't miss it, but -- and I'm sure you've noticed this, too -- that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD describes him or herself as a "moderate," and can point out some more more extreme example that makes him or her seem reasonable in comparison. That adds one level of relatively transparent obfuscation to the red team/blue team debate, turning it into "The red team is infinitely better (except for Fred, but the rest of us are moderate, unlike him), whereas the entire Blue team are extremists!"
Also, if we're going to cite HISTORICAL FACT! we can go on all day.
Iran Contra - Ronald Reagan, Republican.
Watergate - Richard Nixon, Republican.
Teapot Dome - Warren Harding, Republican.
Obviously republicans are scandal-mongers, just as much as democrats are war-mongers.
|
|
But you missed the rest of my post apparently. I also pointedout how raical anti-abortion Republicans also get it wrong becaue most rational people on both sides support at least limited abortion.Didn't miss it, but -- and I'm sure you've noticed this, too -- that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD describes him or herself as a "moderate," and can point out some more more extreme example that makes him or her seem reasonable in comparison. That adds one level of relatively transparent obfuscation to the red team/blue team debate, turning it into "The red team is infinitely better (except for Fred, but the rest of us are moderate, unlike him), whereas the entire Blue team are extremists."
Okay, I my be missing the point, but I don't see how I was doing that with my post. I never said that all Democrats are anti-war, I simply said that stating that Republicans are worse than Hitler becase they start wars is an inaccurate statement because it denies historical fact.
I simply said that stating that Republicans are worse than Hitler becase they start wars is an inaccurate statement because it denies historical fact.
Correct. Democrats will try to come up with "outs" that are goofy attempts at justifying their stance, like "Well, WWII was heroic and noble, but the deposing of Saddam was unprovoked and evil!" -- but those boil down to opinion, not fact.
The thing to be aware of, though, is that stating that Democrats are worse than Hitler because they are pro-choice is equally inaccurate, unless you have an equally warped view of reality. It has nothing to do with how "moderate" you think you are, or how great you think your "team" is in that regard; rather, it has to do with the attack being baseless and basically goofy.
|
|
Also, if we're going to cite HISTORICAL FACT! we can go on all day.
Iran Contra - Ronald Reagan, Republican.
Watergate - Richard Nixon, Republican.
Teapot Dome - Warren Harding, Republican.
Obviously republicans are scandal-mongers, just as much as democrats are war-mongers.
Yes, that is true. And you are right we could go all day. You forgot to mention that both JFK's father and George H.W. Bush's father were both Nazi sympathizers. I hereby invoke Godwin's law on myself.
You forgot to mention that both JFK's father and George H.W. Bush's father were both Nazi sympathizers. I hereby invoke Godwin's law on myself.
Nice one! Both dads were also domineering SOBs, from what I've read. Yet... the sons are not the fathers (for the record, Bush Sr. is near the top of my list for favorite presidents in my lifetime, although I doubt I would have liked him as a person).
|
|
You forgot to mention that both JFK's father and George H.W. Bush's father were both Nazi sympathizers. I hereby invoke Godwin's law on myself.Nice one! Both dads were also domineering SOBs, from what I've read. Yet... the sons are not the fathers (for the record, Bush Sr. is near the top of my list for favorite presidents in my lifetime, although I doubt I would have liked him as a person).
See I have opposite feelings about Bill Clinton. I'm not really thrilled with the job he did as President, prior to '94 anyway, but the two times I met him in person I really liked him as a man.
See I have opposite feelings about Bill Clinton. I'm not really thrilled with the job he did as President, prior to '94 anyway, but the two times I met him in person I really liked him as a man.
I never trusted that dude (and never met him), and sure didn't like him as president... up until maybe the Starr proceedings came up and I actually starting looking at what he'd done, second-term. Didn't agree with everything, obviously, but I realized on the whole he'd done a better job economically than I'd previously been willing to give him credit for. It was an odd experience to get into the usual "Yeah! Impeach the SOB!" conversation with one of my buddies and be forced to admit, "Well, maybe we should hold off on that."
I found it funny that the same people who were saying that we shouldn't impeach Clinton turned around and said we should elect Al Gore. If Gore would have been such a great President then why didn't they want him two years earlier.
Obviously I'm not one of those; there was no power on Earth that would have made me vote for Gore.
|
See I have opposite feelings about Bill Clinton. I'm not really thrilled with the job he did as President, prior to '94 anyway, but the two times I met him in person I really liked him as a man.I never trusted that dude (and never met him), and sure didn't like him as president... up until maybe the Starr proceedings came up and I actually starting looking at what he'd done, second-term. Didn't agree with everything, obviously, but I realized on the whole he'd done a better job economically than I'd previously been willing to give him credit for. It was an odd experience to get into the usual "Yeah! Impeach the SOB!" conversation with one of my buddies and be forced to admit, "Well, maybe we should hold off on that."
Weird, I liked Bill all around, once Newt gained Speaker status. Bill did exactly what I think a leader of a free nation should do: see which way the wind is blowing and give people what they want.
|
|
See I have opposite feelings about Bill Clinton. I'm not really thrilled with the job he did as President, prior to '94 anyway, but the two times I met him in person I really liked him as a man.I never trusted that dude (and never met him), and sure didn't like him as president... up until maybe the Starr proceedings came up and I actually starting looking at what he'd done, second-term. Didn't agree with everything, obviously, but I realized on the whole he'd done a better job economically than I'd previously been willing to give him credit for. It was an odd experience to get into the usual "Yeah! Impeach the SOB!" conversation with one of my buddies and be forced to admit, "Well, maybe we should hold off on that."Weird, I liked Bill all around, once Newt gained Speaker status. Bill did exactly what I think a leader of a free nation should do: see which way the wind is blowing and give people what they want.
Like I said, I didn't like him as a president prior to '94. And he a Newt butted heads quite a few times, particularly over the budget.
Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.
Maybe Obama will move towards the center too in the future, especially if the Republicans take back congress in 2010. Of course, the Internet has made the fringes of both parties much more vocal, so he might not have a chance to.
You know lately the Democrat talking heads on television love to talk about how Clinton balanced the budget. The always neglect one fact though, that the Republicans in Congress refused to sign any budget that wasn't balanced. That was what the government shutdown in August of 1995 was over.
You know lately the Republican talking heads on television love to talk about how Obama is ruining the budget. They always neglect one fact though, that the Republican in office beforehand already ratcheted up the debt to crushing levels.
Pots and kettles.
You know lately the Democrat talking heads on television love to talk about how Clinton balanced the budget. The always neglect one fact though, that the Republicans in Congress refused to sign any budget that wasn't balanced. That was what the government shutdown in August of 1995 was over.You know lately the Republican talking heads on television love to talk about how Obama is ruining the budget. They always neglect one fact though, that the Republican in office beforehand already ratcheted up the debt to crushing levels.
Pots and kettles.
Yeah the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors acting like Democrats with morality issues during the Bush administration. Tax and spend doesn't endear the GOP to their base, or conservative independents like myself.
|
Yeah the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors acting like Democrats with morality issues during the Bush administration. Tax and spend doesn't endear the GOP to their base, or conservative independents like myself.
My dad, a lifelong Republican, pretty much gave up on the party and is looking at 3rd parties now.
Yeah the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors acting like Democrats with morality issues during the Bush administration. Tax and spend doesn't endear the GOP to their base, or conservative independents like myself.My dad, a lifelong Republican, pretty much gave up on the party and is looking at 3rd parties now.
I liked the Libertarians until Bob Barr glommed onto them :/
|
|
I liked Bill Bradley as a candidate. he did exactly what I think a candidat should do, he resigned his post so that his constituants would not be deprived of representation. I loved his performance in the debates too. When Al Gore was asked what he would do to end racial profiling and he said he would sign an executive order outlawing it, Bradley replied "You know, if you feel that stongly about it, you are the vice-president. Why not just walk down the hall to the president's office and ask him to sign an executive order."
My dad, a lifelong Republican, pretty much gave up on the party and is looking at 3rd parties now.
Mine, too. For the old man to vote other than Republican is a sure sign of the end times -- if I believed in that sort of thing.
|
|
You know lately the Democrat talking heads on television love to talk about how Clinton balanced the budget. The always neglect one fact though, that the Republicans in Congress refused to sign any budget that wasn't balanced. That was what the government shutdown in August of 1995 was over.You know lately the Republican talking heads on television love to talk about how Obama is ruining the budget. They always neglect one fact though, that the Republican in office beforehand already ratcheted up the debt to crushing levels.
Pots and kettles.
Ah, but for half his tenure as president he had Democrat congresses righting the budgets. Once again we coul go on this merry go round all day. owever, i will just drop th tiopic with one thing. Constitutionally Congress controls the power of the purse. Thefore I always laghed when Nancy Pelosi, ry Reid, and other congressonl Democrats complained about the deficit that Bush as running up, particularly during the period between 2000-202 and 2006-2008 when they ere running the show and could have vetoed any deficet or refused to raise the debt ceiling. Washington is just one big breeding ground for hypocracy it seems.
|
|
You know, I have noticed a trend. Democrats seem obsessed with teh Republicans at a time when the Republicans have no power to do anything. Rather than getting their own house in order they seem obsessed with finding any Republian in any kind of elected office that have said any kind of wacko thing and then saying that the represent the whole Republian party. It doesn't make sense to me that they would focus on an impotent opponent when their own party is in such disarray.
Yeah the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors acting like Democrats with morality issues during the Bush administration. Tax and spend doesn't endear the GOP to their base, or conservative independents like myself.My dad, a lifelong Republican, pretty much gave up on the party and is looking at 3rd parties now.
I've been fed up with the Republican base for a time as well but I don't see the point of voting for a third party. The way the American political system is set up it is a waste of a vote.
|
|
You know, I have noticed a trend. Democrats seem obsessed with teh Republicans at a time when the Republicans have no power to do anything. Rather than getting their own house in order they seem obsessed with finding any Republian in any kind of elected office that have said any kind of wacko thing and then saying that the represent the whole Republian party. It doesn't make sense to me that they would focus on an impotent opponent when their own party is in such disarray.
And Republicans didn't do the same thing? I seem to recall differently. Once again, this is not a problem of only one side.