The new Republican House Majority

Farmgirl, do you have a reading problem? Are you really this stupid?

I asked Cyclotroll to show us where "slavery" is mentioned in our Constitution... he has provided no proof.

H2O MAN wrote:

Farmgirl, do you have a reading problem? Are you really this stupid?

I asked Cyclotroll to show us where "slavery" is mentioned in our Constitution... he has provided no proof.

How about: Trust me, it is there...

So now, trying to backpedal

Article IV, Section 2:

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

Talking to spurt is like training a parakeet. I ran out of sunflowers and patience with this creature.
.

House GOP Scrambles To Clean Up Sessions' Mess
Evan McMorris-Santoro | January 7, 2011, 9:47AM

House Republican leaders will be busy today constructing the parliamentary Rube Goldberg device they'll need to briefly turn back the House clock after Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) skipped Wednesday's official swearing-in ceremony, rendering everything they did between the moment the Republicans officially took over and yesterday afternoon unconstitutional.

Roll Call reports that House Rules Committee chair David Dreier (R-CA) is planning to nullify those votes via a rule in the procedures his committee is writing for the health care repeal process, the first major vote of the new Congress which is expected to come next week.

Basically, Drier's proposed scheme would allow Sessions' votes and other actions in the Rules Committee, of which he is a member, and Fitzpatrick's actions on the floor (including the reading of the Constitution yesterday) to be made Constitutional by a full vote of the House, which of course is now controlled by the Republicans. (The Democrats could have allowed the Sessions mess to be cleaned up by a unanimous consent decree, rendering all that the pair did before being sworn in Thursday to count retroactively, but Politico reports the Democrats weren't interested in playing ball.)

Session's failure to be sworn in properly the first time led to speculation that the repeal effort, a crown jewel of the new majority's agenda, might be delayed. Drier's solution to the problem apparently puts those fears to rest.

From Roll Call's Anna Palmer and John Stanton:

Quote:

In lieu of a unanimous consent agreement to address the problem, which had been discussed, the committee will continue its work on the repeal bill and deal with the issue as part of the rule Friday, according to Dreier. The committee had met for more than six hours and had heard from several witnesses on the repeal bill Thursday.

"We're in uncharted waters," Drier reportedly said at a hearing of the Rules committee last night.

Rules committee Democrats are criticizing Drier's scheme, which they say needs to be addressed by the full House, not just the Rules committee. They propose a delay in the repeal hearings so the House can meet and figure out what to do. But in the new reality of Republican control, it's unlikely the Democratic concerns will move from political rhetoric to legislative action.

It's worth noting that Fitzpatrick and Sessions weren't the only ones to miss the swearing-in ceremony Wednesday. Rep. Peter DeFaizio (D-OR) skipped the ceremony to meet with veterans in his home district. He was sworn in on Thursday and his absence, and his absence on Wednesday caused none of the issues Fitzpatrick's and Sessions' did because he cast no votes before becoming a Constitutionally-recognized member of the 112th Congress.

Late Update: The process by which the mess Sessions and Fitzpatrick made will be cleaned up is coming into better focus. The full House will vote twice -- once on the rules for repealing the health care law, and once on "a resolution relating to the status of certain actions taken by Members-elect."

Fraud.

06 Jan 2011 01:00 pm



On his show yesterday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Paul Ryan about his plans during the next Congress:

Quote:

HH: In terms of the staff that you’ve got coming to Budget committee, out of the culture of Washington, they’re all kind of suspect. Where are you finding the people who are going to have sort of the immunity to the spending disease?

PR: Well, I just hired somebody from the National Review.

He knows his audience. But you don't need someone from NR to cut spending. We all know how to cut the spending that matters. We can all read Bowles-Simpson - a roadmap to fiscal sanity that Paul Ryan, unlike Tom Coburn, won't take. We all know we have to slash entitlements and defense and reform and raise taxes. We can do it now if we want. But Ryan does not want to tackle the debt now. He wants to play politics now:

Quote:

"We're gonna be reducing all domestic discretionary spending. I can't tell you by what amount and which program, but all of it is going to be going down, and the aggregate amount will be back to 2008 levels before the spending binge occurred."

Before the spending binge occurred? You mean to say that the eight years of George "Deficits Don't Matter" Bush did not include spending binges? You mean to say that emergency spending for the worst downturn since the 1930s was seriously in doubt under any president of either party?

What Ryan is doing is pretty obvious. He is trying to frame fiscal irresponsibility as somehow solely about 2008 - 2010. He's lying about the Republican past and the recession. He has no serious plans to cut entitlements now (anyone only focusing on discretionary spending is a demonstrable fraud), no plans to cut defense, no plans to raise any taxes. And he has thrown away a chance to become a real fiscal conservative in Washington, able actually to tackle the problem rather than exploit it for partisan purposes.

He is the problem with Republicanism today, not its solution. If the debt is such a threat, why do you refuse to tackle it seriously now? Why reduce yourself to the tiniest sliver of the smallest part of the discretionary spending budget ... when you could claim a serious mandate to end the debt for good? Why, after the last campaign, are the Republicans still unserious about cutting spending?

Because they're frauds.

(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.)

Permalink :: Sphere It! :: Share This

On Friday, the House, now under Republican rule, voted 236 to 181 to approve the rule for next week’s debate on repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed by President Barack Obama last March. The vote was the first indicator of support for repeal.

Next week, the House will follow through with the repeal vote itself...

Republicans campaigned last fall on a pledge to “repeal and replace” the health care law. Exit poll interviews on Nov. 2 showed that, while voters in general are divided about whether the law should be scrapped, a majority of those age 65 and older say it deserves to be nixed. Source

ObamaCare... includes provisions for death panels and government takeover of health care...