twa Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Quote Senate Dem blocks own bill over California drought language http://www.thehill.com/policy/transportation/309702-senate-dem-blocks-own-bill-over-california-drought-language Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) successfully slipped in long-desired language to provide drought relief to central and southern California. It would temporarily relax environmental standards and instruct federal officials to divert more water to farms and other users in the federal water infrastructure in the Golden State.Boxer, ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the move would undermine the Endangered Species Act, permanently harm fisheries and change the way Congress approves dams. Her unanimous consent request to offer an amendment that would strip the drought provision was swiftly rejected Friday afternoon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 50 minutes ago, twa said: That is a very confusing headline. (Doesn't seem to match up with the story) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-republicans-revive-obscure-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-slash-the-pay-of-individual-federal-workers-to-1/2017/01/04/4e80c990-d2b2-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fedpay-1230pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1db09fd32732 House Republicans revive obscure rule that allows them to slash the pay of individual federal workers to $1 House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service. The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program. The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1*million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials. The revival of the Holman Rule was the brainchild of Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who is intent on increasing the powers of individual members of Congress to reassign workers as policy demands. Edited January 6, 2017 by Gallen5862 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I would really like to understand if the Holman Rule was used to cut salaries in the past, and if any court ruled it Constitutional. Everything I have read, and understand about the Merit Systems, and the comprehensive process in place indicates that targetting specific employees would be penalizing civil servants without merit or in the face of "efficiency of the service" standard (full disclosure, I appealed my federal furlough in 2013). Houae and Senate would still have to pass a law, and President sign such a law. What this does set up, is using the policy bills as appropriations bills, with cuts. But given that the appropriations bills have yet to be passed, I still don't understand fully how the House will use this tool.... the Senate will filibuster (unless the GOP goes that route). One thing the GOP did was make sure they can ignore the budgetary cost of ACA repeal... I mean we know the Dems will bring it up, but not on the official accounting Congress keeps. After 8 years of being deficit hawks, the GOP will turn on the old, "deficits don't matter" charm we had when Bush was in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 46 minutes ago, Fergasun said: One thing the GOP did was make sure they can ignore the budgetary cost of ACA repeal... I mean we know the Dems will bring it up, but not on the official accounting Congress keeps. After 8 years of being deficit hawks, the GOP will turn on the old, "deficits don't matter" charm we had when Bush was in office. Pretty sure they did that, years ago. Just going from memory, here. But I'm pretty sure that, when the Dems took control of the House, under W, in '06, they changed the rules of the House to include "Pay As You Go": a set of rules saying that any bill which the CBO says will increase the deficit, must also inclue some measure which the CBO says will pay for it. (I'm certain that they included exceptions to the rules. Things like suspending the rule in emergencies, and such. That's just the summary they used of the rule.) And when the TEA Party helped the R's take the House, under Obama, in '10, the first thing the TEA Party (Remember them? They were an independent group, not affiliated with any Party, whose sole motivation was reducing the deficit.) did was to join with the GOP in changing the rules of the House, so that "Pay As You Go" did not apply to any deficit-increasing bill, if the bill 1) Cut taxes. 2) Or repealed Obamacare. (Every single member of the non-affiliated-with-any-Party TEA Party voted to do this. As their first official order of business.) Nor did "8 years of being deficit hawks" stop the GOP from voting, unanimously, to increase defense spending (to get rid of the sequester, and more). Multiple times. Face it. The GOP haven't been deficit hawks, at least for my lifetime. It's a slogan that they use, when they want to demand cuts to social spending. When was the last time a Republican, any Republican, voted against a tax cut, because he was worried about the deficit? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) Edited February 10, 2017 by visionary 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 LOVE THIS!!! Hopefully this will take place all over the country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Tea party for the left is a good idea? Because the right wing tea party has been so beneficial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Tea party for the left is a good idea? Because the right wing tea party has been so beneficial Far too soon to compare. The tea party ran hard right wing candidates that had no interest in governing and some are downright idiots. If the left kills it's own and chooses to run on extreme positions, it won't be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) Edited February 10, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 I just love how all of a sudden this moron says the imbecile in chief can have no conflict of interest.... when Clinton was running it was all how the Clinton Cash crap was gonna corrupt the government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 On 2/9/2017 at 9:35 PM, Kilmer17 said: Tea party for the left is a good idea? Because the right wing tea party has been so beneficial I think it would be good. they might as well since they have abandoned the moderates. Quote Nima Shirazi@WideAsleepNima Follow More Nima Shirazi Retweeted The Hill Please primary this racist jackass. Nima Shirazi added, The Hill @thehill Jim Webb: Democrats have moved too far to the left http://hill.cm/JbuXMXD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 9 hours ago, twa said: I think it would be good. they might as well since they have abandoned the moderates. Well I certainly hope the "progressives" do follow Nima's recommendation and expend lots effort and money to primary the "racist"Jim Webb. Wonder how much time and energy they will waste on him before they realize he is no longer in office. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 Some interesting stuff from the Sanford/Scott town hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 Chaffetz should come clean and speak the truth. "You dirty rat mother****ers are not who signs my checks, so go **** yourself. Chant all you want, the only reason I'm here is to smile at you and pretend to listen, but the fact is, i'm getting out of here tonight after we're done, and nothing is going to change, except we now have all of your faces on recognition software. Thanks for that. Beats tattooing ID numbers on your arms, as i'm sure you'll all agree. Thank you ,and remember, go **** yourself, and your mother, too." SIncerely, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now