The new Republican House Majority

[The Cooperation isn't between the House Dems and the House Republicans, but instead between House Republicans and either Reid or Obama. The House Dems are far enough in the minority that their cooperation on issues isn't required, or even really a factor, in getting bills passed - the same way that cooperation from the Republicans wasn't required in the last Congress to get any of the bills in the House passed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[The Cooperation isn't between the House Dems and the House Republicans, but instead between House Republicans and either Reid or Obama. The House Dems are far enough in the minority that their cooperation on issues isn't required, or even really a factor, in getting bills passed - the same way that cooperation from the Republicans wasn't required in the last Congress to get any of the bills in the House passed.

I agree with this. However, I find it hard to reconcile this statement with your many previous complaints about Republican opposition to Democrsat legislative proposals during the past two years in which the Democrats enjoyed commanding majorities in both Houses of Congress. It appears to me that you are defending Pelosi using arguments you dismissed when others used them to rationalize Republican opposition to Democrat legislative initiatives.

It is immaterial anyway in that I suggested that Pelosi should be replaced because she is a polarizing figure who , in my opinion, won't do the Administration any good under the current circumstances - and not because she was an ineffective leader of her caucus.

I also believe that we will soon see some level of argument among Democrats over precisely these issues.

Defenders of the earmarking practice point out that the total annual cost of pet projects represents a tiny percentage of the overall federal budget. The president’s 2010 budget totaled about $3.5 trillion. The sum of the last year’s earmarks — $16.5 billion — is less than one half of one percent of that total. Source

The 2010 midterm elections marked a historic loss for President Obama's Democratic party, and although the Republicans now control the House of Representatives, the public wants them to work with the president and compromise in order to get things done.

Americans' desire to see Republicans and Democrats put the bickering aside and get some work done extends across both parties, with a substantial 72 percent of those polled by CBS News saying the GOP members of Congress should make tradeoffs in order to get things accomplished.

Will the Republicans listen to their own base? To the 'message' the country is sending? I think we all know that the answer is no.

It puts the Republicans in a damned awkward position. To appeal to the supposed tea party grassroots movement, they have to be obstructionist and start a raft of idiotic investigations. In so doing, they would alienate most of the electorate. I doubt that RNC is fooled by the claim that the tea party represents the majority opinions of voters. It will be interesting to watch.

THE SUDDENLY-UNPOPULAR APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.... For years, members of the House, from both parties, desperately wanted to be assigned to the Appropriations Committee. And why not? It was the panel that allowed members to steer funds to their districts, which tended to make them pretty popular back home.

But as the 112th Congress takes shape, it appears no one's anxious to accept this once-plum committee assignment.

Quote:

A band of conservative rebels has taken over the House, vowing to slash spending, cut the deficit and kill earmarks.

And of course they'd love a seat on the powerhouse Appropriations Committee so they can translate their campaign zeal into action, right?

Not really.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was asked to be an appropriator and said thanks, but no thanks. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a tea party favorite, turned down a shot at Appropriations, which controls all discretionary spending. So did conservatives like Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an ambitious newcomer who will lead the influential Republican Study Committee.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who hopes to be the committee's chairman, noted, "Anybody who's a Republican right now, come June, is going to be accused of hating seniors, hating education, hating children, hating clean air and probably hating the military and farmers, too.... There's going to be a lot of tough votes. So some people may want to shy away from the committee. I understand it."

At Daily Kos, Susan Gardner added yesterday, "Yeah, be careful what you ask for. You get elected grandstanding about government overspending, you might actually have to ... you know, put your name to specifics on where to cut government spending. And no one wants to run two years down the line on killing popular programs -- and every program has some constituency that actually uses it, benefits from it, feels allegiance to it."

Quite right. It wasn't an accident that, throughout the campaign season, Republican candidates balked when asked to talk about what they intended to cut if given power. For all their bravado about how the "American people" just love cutting spending, and elected Republiacns to do just that, many GOP officials are well aware of the dirty little secret -- spending cuts can not only undermine economic growth, they also tend to be pretty unpopular.

Kingston's quote actually telegraphed where Republicans intend to go -- the GOP is looking to cut funding for schools, seniors, clean air, farmers, and the military.

The 30-second ads for 2012 will practically write themselves. If I were a Republican lawmaker, beholden to an unhinged base, I'd probably want to avoid the Appropriations Committee, too.
—Steve Benen 8:40 AM

The Jekyll and Hyde that is the US.

I'd have expected the Monster of the USA to be Dorian Gray.

I'm being honest here.

without consciousness.

They will read the Constitution aloud.

And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the legislator who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed law.

Two new rules

Quote:

They will read the Constitution aloud.

And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the legislator who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed law.

I am not denying the constitution is/was not a very good way to govern, but it written in the time when the only people who had a voice was white men. People might get carried away with all this stuff. Are they talking of only the original or all the amendments added after? Surely they will remember the second amendment if nothing else.