"Amid rancor, House approves spending bill" by Noah Bierman and Jessica Meyers, Globe Staff December 11, 2014
WASHINGTON — The House approved a sweeping $1.1 trillion spending bill Thursday night, with less than three hours before a midnight deadline to fund the government, after a day of arm-twisting, uncertainty, and unlikely alliances.
The Senate is expected to begin debating the measure Friday, and leaders from both parties expect it to pass with far less drama. President Obama has indicated he will sign it.
To keep the government from shutting down before the Senate votes, which could take one or more days, the House and Senate approved a two-day stopgap measure late Thursday that will fund the government at current levels.
The threat of a shutdown and the public exercise of dysfunction had a familiar ring as the clock ticked toward midnight. Tense negotiations over keeping the government open have become a ritual in recent years, as lawmakers have used the budget to wage larger policy battles.
My print said the "nail-biter was unusual."
The struggle to approve the measure lingered through the day, with a scheduled vote on the measure delayed for seven hours, because of an unlikely battle that pitted the White House and Republicans against Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.
The House’s 219-206 vote was a defeat for Warren and other liberals.
It's a tradition in Wa$hington.
Fifty-seven Democrats supported the measure, while 67 Republicans opposed it. Eight of the nine members of the Massachusetts delegation voted no, the exception being Representative Michael Capuano of Somerville, who did not vote.
The fight that divided Democrats among themselves threatened to unravel the comprehensive $1.1 trillion spending deal that would give more financial certainty to thousands of government programs until the end of September.
I counted a lot of Republican votes their, too!!
The bill’s supporters cited it as a bipartisan achievement that they say maintains a strong military, helps fight the Ebola outbreak in Africa, cuts IRS funding, and provides money for popular local transportation projects such as the Green Line extension in Somerville and Medford.
The chump change for transport when more than half was fed to the war machine.
“With a bipartisan vote, the House has passed a responsible bill to keep the government running and address the American people’s priorities,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement released after the vote.
My printed copy said it reflected the people's priorities!
Related:
Christmas Gift for Wall Street
Warren and other liberal Democrats opposed the budget deal — which was negotiated by a group of House Republicans and Senate Democrats — chiefly because it included a provision that altered Wall Street regulations known as Dodd-Frank that were crafted to avoid a financial crisis like the one that threatened large financial institutions in 2008.
“When the next bailout comes, a lot of people will look back at this vote to see who is responsible for putting the government back on the hook to bail out Wall Street,” Warren said on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon as she tried to rally support for stripping the language from the bill.
The day’s chaos underscored the potential risk and reward for Warren, a liberal leader who could be viewed as an obstructionist for trying to scuttle a bipartisan deal or celebrated by her admirers for fighting Wall Street.
When the money is threatened the slurs begin. She's an ob$tructioni$t!
“The biggest threat that we face is gridlock, deadlock, and the way that we paralyze ourselves by making the perfect the enemy of the good,” said Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat who negotiated the bill.
My printed quote was by Jim Moran, "I think frankly there are some people who really don't -- they're not going to let Elizabeth Warren get to the left of them." He supported the bill and is frustrated that fellow Democrats were not signing on!
Boehner defended the provision opposed by Warren. It would remove a rule that requires big banks to move certain risky financial investments into separate units, so that they are not backed by federal government insurance or given other protections.
“Democrats have supported this provision in the past,” Boehner said. “It was agreed to in this bill in a bipartisan, bicameral agreement.”
And it was ready for months before they presented it! You been fooleyed, 'murkn voter!
The 1,603-page bill’s detractors found disparate reasons to oppose it. Representative Stephen Lynch, a South Boston Democrat, said he opposed it not only because of the Dodd-Frank change, but also because it allowed corporations to cut pensions. He and others also opposed a campaign spending provision that would increase the statutory limit one person can give to national political party committees from $9,200 a year to $777,600.
Open the floodgates after Citizens United!!
It's already a corporate government, so why not? It's GOING to the PARTY COMMITTEES!
Pelosi said she would vote against the bill but did not insist that her fellow Democrats join her. She criticized Obama for offering his support. Obama, in his statement, expressed disappointment with the Dodd-Frank and campaign finance provisions but still supported the overall measure.
“I’m enormously disappointed that the White House feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this,” Pelosi said in a sign of increasing tension among Democrats.
Conservative Republicans objected to a separate provision in the huge bill, saying it did not do enough to punish Obama for taking unilateral action to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country.
“People don’t like the president’s illegal amnesty,” said Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican.
Want him impeached over it, but it's not a priority with the political class (and if they do it will be a distraction for what other nefarious purpose?).
Anger on the left and right created surprising alliances and forced GOP leaders to delay a floor vote for hours.
Totally contradicting the ANALytical narrative I was given after the election.
Boehner tried to keep as many of his restive members on board as he could, while Obama and other White House officials scrambled to win over Democrats. Pelosi sent an e-mail to House Democrats, urging them to hold firm against the spending deal and “give us leverage to improve the bill.”
Oh, look, the will of the people broke through (surprising alliances only to ignorant power elite and their political and media slaves) as the $lavish politicians scramble to $erve their ma$ters!
Distressed lawmakers and aides gathered behind closed doors to strategize. Several House Democrats who emerged from a lengthy meeting Thursday evening with Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, did not seem to be swayed by his argument that Democrats would get a worse deal if they wait until next year, when Republicans control the Senate. They seemed only more firm in their position.
“We’ve got to stand up at some point on principle,” said Representative Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat.
Oh, you are going to do it NOW, on the verge of becoming the minority party?
That is one way of saying they NEVER STOOD UP FOR PRINCIPLE AT ALL!
House Republican leaders said Democrats would be blamed for killing a strong deal and replacing it with either a shutdown or yet another short-term extension, if the larger spending bill failed. But Democrats pushed back.
“This is blackmail,” Pelosi said from the House floor.
--more--"
Are these your priorities?
"Senate panel approves limited fight against Islamic State" by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times December 12, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted along party lines Thursday to authorize the military campaign against the Islamic State, a decision that raises difficult questions for Republicans and intensifies a debate over war powers that has split President Obama from many in his own party.
Merry Xmas, Mr. Emperor.
The 10-8 vote put on display unusual agreement between some Democrats and some Republicans as well as contemplations about morality, obligation, constitutional prerogatives, and the proper balance of power between branches of government. It was also a foreshadowing of a debate likely to be held on the Senate floor after the Republican-controlled Congress returns in January.
Is it?
I guess it wasn't the Globe's priorities to put the italics in my printed paper.
All Democrats voted in favor of the measure that would authorize Obama’s war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, but greatly restrict the use of ground forces and limit the operation to three years before Congress has to revisit it.
Now we know who also has blood on their hands.
Opposed were all the Republicans, seven of whom warned of binding the hands of the commander in chief. One Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the measure for a different reason, that the restrictions did not go far enough.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who leads the committee, said that Obama should not have the sole power to send the nation’s young people to dangerous overseas conflicts. He rejected the idea that “Congress should just succumb to what the executive wants.”
As they did just that.
“It is the Congress’ imperative,” he said, “to ultimately make that decision as to how we are going to send America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way.”
But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is considering a run for president, said that Congress would set a dangerous precedent by putting statutory limitations on any conflict, even as he agreed that the Senate was exercising what many lawmakers considered their most solemn obligation: approving war.
“The role we play is in deciding whether or not we should go into war, but our role is not to decide how to go to war,” he told his colleagues before the vote. “It is up to the commander in chief to carry out this war.”
Though the political implications of the debate went unspoken, they were hard to ignore. Paul is also considering seeking the Republican nomination for president, yet he wants to lead the party in far different directions on foreign policy than Rubio.
Paul’s idea of limitations go further than even some of the Democrats on the committee would. He offered an amendment, which was defeated, that would have limited the engagement geographically to Iraq and Syria.
Rubio, who looked on intently as Paul spoke, said that would be “a terrible mistake” that would jeopardize any chance of victory.
“To put forth something that says we are willing to fight ISIL, but we are not willing to do it here, there or the other place, I think, imperils that,” Rubio said.
What seemed to bother many senators was the idea that Congress, by failing to agree earlier on a resolution to set parameters on the military campaign against the Islamic State, had abdicated its powers. Many spoke of re-exerting Congress’ constitutional authority to act as a check against the president.
It's called a rubber stamp, and the budgets are going through. This is all theater.
“Many of us, myself included, believe the president is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution,” said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn.
Then IMPEACH HIM as the CONSTITUTION DEMANDS!
Sen. Bob Corker, the senior Republican on the committee who is expected to become chairman in January once his party takes control of the Senate, rejected that. “We are rushing to make this legal — as if that makes us relevant,” he said.
There are political considerations for Democrats as well. Senators like Murphy and Tim Kaine of Virginia are viewed as two of the party’s rising stars. They strongly favor curtailing the president’s war powers. Those sentiments could prove unsettling in a 2016 election that features Hillary Rodham Clinton, who as secretary of state put in place and defended the Obama foreign policy.
Maybe, maybe not.
How a war powers resolution will be handled by the new Republican Congress is still being worked out. Corker has said he would like to continue the discussions but would prefer to wait until the administration presents lawmakers with a formal plan of action.
--more--"
Time to say goodbye:
"Congress Losing Last WWII Vets, a Tea Party Fave" by CONNIE CASS Associated Press, Dec 11, 2014
As they end their careers, many lawmakers of various eras are sounding a common note: that they're leaving the institution in worse shape than they found it.
"We have lost our way,"Johnson lamented and Rockefeller warned.
Related: Where the Journey Continues
Looks to me like they have been on course the whole time.
"Politics today is too full of pettiness," complained Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., who could hardly be blamed for the state of Congress since he only arrived as an appointee in February. Walsh's bid to win a full term ended in a plagiarism scandal, so he gets less than 11 months in office.
How ironic is that?
That's not a record: One 1970s senator served only four days.
Republicans, looking forward to expanding their control from the House to the Senate in January, sound more upbeat these days than Democrats. Still, some departing GOP members are echoing the 9 out of 10 Americans who tell pollsters they disapprove of Congress' handiwork.
And yet most of them were reelected, huh?
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, quitting after one term, said "confidence in our nation's ability to solve problems may be shaken" but insisted that "ordinary people can do extraordinary things even here in Washington, D.C."
Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon teared up as he spoke of reaching the twilight of a two-decade career, but the House Armed Services chairman also berated his colleagues for allowing budget cuts known as "sequestration" that he said are harming the troops.
You didn't read the budget you just voted for, and all those sequestered cuts were put back then more funds added.
"There isn't a magical solution that Republicans can support and the president can sign without sacrifice on both sides," the California Republican said, adding "shame on all of us" if Congress and the president fail to restore defense spending next year.
What, more than half the budget not enough??
A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds Americans feeling pessimistic: Just 13 percent are confident that President Barack Obama and the incoming Republican-led Congress can work together to solve problems.
Because Americans have their eyes wide open now, and can smell the rank and rancid rot of this corrupt and fetid carcass that has become the AmeriKan government.
Rep. George Miller, one of the last of the Democratic "Watergate babies" swept into office after President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, takes a longer view.
He says the overly partisan tone will fade away eventually, perhaps after another election or two when the voters settle the latest round of arguments over the size and role of government.
"America has to make up its mind," Miller said in an interview, "so the Congress can make up its mind."
They did! The war budgets and tax cuts for the wealthy and Wall Street all pa$$ed.
--more--"
"Potatoes could be back on the WIC menu
WASHINGTON — For the first time, low-income women could soon be able to pay for potatoes with government-subsidized vouchers issued by the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program. The potato provision is part of a massive spending bill Congress is expected to approve soon. White potatoes have been excluded from WIC since fruits and vegetables were first allowed in 2009. It’s not that white potatoes themselves aren’t nutritious, but they’re often used to make french fries, which are usually fried or baked in unhealthful fats and oils. Lawmakers from roughly 40 potato-growing states have been pushing to include the potato in the program. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, has long promoted the nutritional attributes of potatoes, including potassium."
Look, it's either guns or freedom fries.
NEXT DAY UPDATES:
In losing Wall Street battle, Warren may gain party clout
The measure that drew Warren’s ire would remove a requirement that banks conduct some of their riskiest trading activity under separate divisions that are not insured by taxpayers. The requirement was put into the financial overhaul to prevent taxpayers from having to bail banks out for risky activities.
A similar provision to weaken the banking regulation was approved in the House last year. It had support from 22 of 28 Democrats in a committee vote as well as 70 Democrats in a full vote.
The bill was a big priority for the banks.
Somehow they always get what they want, parti$an$hip or not.
Citi, one of the banks that would most benefit from the change, has spent at least $10.6 million on lobbying over the past two years. It has 54 registered lobbyists, nearly 90 percent of which previously held government jobs, according to data collected the Center for Responsive Politics.
Ed Skyler, executive vice president for global public affairs for Citi, wrote in a blog post Friday that the bank “has been and remains a strong supporter of financial reform.”
I'll bet!
Related:
Presenting The $303 Trillion In Derivatives That US Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook For
Yes, that is with a T!
Looks like the lobbying paid off for Citi, huh?
Senate OKs defense policy bill
Congress on Friday sent President Obama a massive defense policy bill that endorses his stepped-up military campaign of air strikes and training of Iraqis and moderate Syrian rebels in the war against Islamic State militants. The vote was 89 to 11.
Whom they have enabled for the obvious reasons.
So the war machine and Wall Street have been taken care of. Anything else?
Unrelated provisions to designate 250,000 acres of new, federally protected wilderness were added to the popular legislation.
Popular with who? Not the American people!
That above another land grab to fulfill Agenda 21, the New World Order, call it what you will.
With lawmakers eager to wrap up work for the year, there was little doubt senators would give final approval by early next week.
Corruption has now literally been legali$ed. This nation is done.
The defense measure would authorize the training and equipping of moderate Syrian rebels battling the extremists, a mandate that lasts for two years.
It also would provide $5 billion to train Iraqis to counter the militants who brutally rule large sections of Iraq and Syria.
As domestic spending remains flat when the services are needed more than ever.
‘‘American air power had changed the momentum on the ground somewhat and given moderates in the region an opportunity to regroup, but ISIS cannot be defeated without an opposing force to take the fight to it on the ground,’’ said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
That's why Obama waited until after the elections to increase combat troops in Iraq.
‘‘To do that, our Arab and Muslim partners must be in the lead because the fight with ISIS is primarily a struggle within Islam for the hearts and minds of Muslims,’’ he said.
OMG, he is yanking out that tired neo-con rejoinder to rally the troops as he leaves?
Is he also voting for the bank bailout bill because he was a loud voice during the photo-op hearings after the 2008 financial meltdown?
Debate on the bill was fraught with emotion as Levin, who is retiring after 36 years in the Senate, delivered his valedictory speech.
Congress now has passed a defense bill for 53 consecutive years, and Levin noted that lawmakers’ desire to help the troops has fostered bipartisanship despite bitter political divisions.
Wait until you see how they are "helping" the troops!
‘‘They not only protect us; they unite us,’’ said Levin, who received sustained applause at the end of his remarks.
Didn't Hitler say the same thing about.... never mind.
The bill would provide the core funding of $521.3 billion for the military and $63.7 billion for overseas operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's $585 billion out of $1.1 trillion -- more than half the budget is for WAR!
Fuck this government! I disown and wash my hands of the piece of shit, and damn them for all time!
The bill would prohibit the retirement of the A-10 Warthog, the close-air support plane often described as ugly but invaluable.
And it's important to some Congre$$critter.
Now ABOUT THOSE TROOPS!
The Pentagon sought cuts in military benefits. Lawmakers compromised by agreeing to make service members pay $3 more for co-pays on prescription drugs and trimming the growth of the off-base housing allowance by 1 percent instead of the Pentagon’s deeper 5 percent recommendation.
Yeah, support the troops -- just don't $upport the troops.
And they are the ones ALLEGEDLY FOR YOU, soldier -- not the icky antiwar people like me who are tired of you being killed over lies.
