2
   

Democratic achievements in Congress

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 05:46 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The Dems are getting a bad rap for not doing enough.

Can anyone tell me what more the Dems can do in view of Bush's vetoes, which can't be overriden?


Actually,they can be overridden.
The problem is Harry REid cant control his own people to get them to vote the way he wants to.
If members of his own party wont support him on the override votes,what does that say about him?


Um, if Harry Reid got every Democrat to unite and vote to over-ride Bush's vetoes - they still wouldn't have enough people by a wide margin.

You do understand it takes 2/3rds to over-ride a veto? That's a lot of Republicans who would have to cross over.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 06:13 pm
Apparently a major Republican in the House leadership feels the Democratic led Congress hasn't been all that useless.
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), who has a reputation for sometimes "tell[ing] the truth, unvarnished,"
Quote:
D.C. reporters learn quickly to put LaHood on speed dial for straight-dope quotes on pretty much anything House-related, a fact that isn't lost on the congressman's colleagues (and not just the ones who have grown, shall we say, annoyed with LaHood's loquatiousness)
(Ref 1)
offered his assessment of the new Congressional leadership:
Quote:
"They've had a pretty strong quarter," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who praised the insurance bill as "creative" and suggested the homeland security bill would pass overwhelmingly. "The first quarter was not so good, and that's why they're not looking so good in the polls, but this quarter is looking very good for them. They can send their members home crowing about their accomplishments, and they've done it in a bipartisan way, which is exactly what they promised to do," LaHood said.
REF 2

REF 1: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/everyone_in_the_dc_press_corps.html

REF 2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502201.html
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 08:52 pm
kuv, thanks for the great post. That says it all.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 08:00 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The Dems are getting a bad rap for not doing enough.

Can anyone tell me what more the Dems can do in view of Bush's vetoes, which can't be overriden?


Actually,they can be overridden.
The problem is Harry REid cant control his own people to get them to vote the way he wants to.
If members of his own party wont support him on the override votes,what does that say about him?


Um, if Harry Reid got every Democrat to unite and vote to over-ride Bush's vetoes - they still wouldn't have enough people by a wide margin.

You do understand it takes 2/3rds to over-ride a veto? That's a lot of Republicans who would have to cross over.

Cycloptichorn


Yes,I understand that.
My point was that if you cant even get your own people to vote to override,how can you be expected to get the other side to?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 08:10 am
MM, the Dems have very few members who deviate from the party position on most issues. This is untrue relative to the Reps, who knee-jerk vote vote with Bush, preventing a veto override.
0 Replies
 
Dghs48
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 01:24 pm
The Democrat Congress has been a total joke so far....their obnjective is to hold hundreds of hours of hearings, constantly fishing for something to create a headline with.

We need 535 new faces in Washington, seated alphabetically.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 08:13 pm
Quote:
House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies

WASHINGTON Jan 19, 2007 (AP)

The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports.

The energy legislation was the last of six high-priority issues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had pledged to push through during the first 100 hours of Democratic control. The bill passed by a 264-163 vote.

The bill's prospects are uncertain the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority. The top Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, said the bill was "another pig in the poke" that targets incentives necessary to promote domestic drilling.

The legislation would impose a "conservation fee" on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s.

Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

"The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Pump prices topped $3 per gallon last year as the oil industry earned record profits.

The bill, Hoyer said, "starts to move our nation in a new direction" on energy policy.

The bill's opponents accused the Democratic majority of grandstanding and said the legislation was unnecessary.

"We do not need a tax on domestic energy production and development," said Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., the former House speaker. "Increasing taxes on our nation's energy industry means one thing more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline."

Added Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska: "If you want to do things right, let's tax foreign oil."

Young, who had on a bright red shirt, made reference to it when he said, "It's the color of this bill we're debating Communist red." The legislation "amounts to a taking of private property" by forcing oil companies to renegotiate leases they view as valid contracts, he said.

The bill would bar companies from future lease sales unless they agree to renegotiate flawed leases issued in 1998-99 for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Because of a government error, the leases did not contain a trigger for royalties if prices soared as they have in recent years. As a result, the companies have avoided $1 billion in royalties so far and stand to avoid an additional $9 billion over the life of the leases, the Interior Department says.

The White House said it strongly opposes the new production fees and future lease bans. Those steps could reduce domestic production, according to the administration. It views the repeal of the tax break for oil companies as unfairly singling out an industry.

That break, aimed at helping U.S. manufacturers compete against imports, has saved oil companies $700 million a year, House Democrats say.

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 6, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 03:10 pm
The bill would certainly draw Bush's veto. How dare the Dems touch the oil companies.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 04:53 pm
Advocate wrote:
The bill would certainly draw Bush's veto. How dare the Dems touch the oil companies.


Well, apparently it didn't. That article was written in January.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 05:34 pm
Has it been enacted? I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 08:19 pm
maporsche wrote:
That article was written in January.

Oh! For some reason I hadnt seen that. No idea how I came upon it, then..

But yes, would be interested in seeing whether the proposed bill passed the Senate or was watered down or stalled there, and if it passed, whether Bush vetoed it or not.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 08:35 pm
Here's a more recent item:

Quote:
House's Iraq Bill Applies U.S. Laws to Contractors

With the armed security force Blackwater USA and other private contractors in Iraq facing tighter scrutiny, the House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law. The measure would require the F.B.I. to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing.

The bill was approved 389 to 30, despite strong opposition from the White House. It came as lawmakers and human rights groups are using a Sept. 16 shooting by Blackwater personnel in Baghdad to highlight the many contractors operating in Iraq who have apparently been unaccountable to American military or civilian laws and outside the reach of the Iraqi judicial system.

Read on..


The bill was sponsored by Representative David E. Price, Democrat of North Carolina.

225 Democrats votes in favour, none against, and 6 did not vote; 164 Republicans voted in favour, 30 against and 7 did not vote.

The bill comes after Congress already approved a measure proposed by Senator Obama last year that brought Defense Department contractors in the war zone under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, potentially subjecting them to court-martial - but no prosecutions have been brought under that provision...

As always, the familiar qualification applies:

Quote:
"At the end of the day, the execution of this depends not on Congress but the executive branch," said Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has followed the contractor issue closely.

<sighs>
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 09:02 pm
nimh wrote:
Quote:
House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies

WASHINGTON Jan 19, 2007 (AP)

The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports.

The energy legislation was the last of six high-priority issues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had pledged to push through during the first 100 hours of Democratic control. The bill passed by a 264-163 vote.

The bill's prospects are uncertain the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority. The top Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, said the bill was "another pig in the poke" that targets incentives necessary to promote domestic drilling.

The legislation would impose a "conservation fee" on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s.

Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

"The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Pump prices topped $3 per gallon last year as the oil industry earned record profits.

The bill, Hoyer said, "starts to move our nation in a new direction" on energy policy.

The bill's opponents accused the Democratic majority of grandstanding and said the legislation was unnecessary.

"We do not need a tax on domestic energy production and development," said Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., the former House speaker. "Increasing taxes on our nation's energy industry means one thing more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline."

Added Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska: "If you want to do things right, let's tax foreign oil."

Young, who had on a bright red shirt, made reference to it when he said, "It's the color of this bill we're debating Communist red." The legislation "amounts to a taking of private property" by forcing oil companies to renegotiate leases they view as valid contracts, he said.

The bill would bar companies from future lease sales unless they agree to renegotiate flawed leases issued in 1998-99 for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Because of a government error, the leases did not contain a trigger for royalties if prices soared as they have in recent years. As a result, the companies have avoided $1 billion in royalties so far and stand to avoid an additional $9 billion over the life of the leases, the Interior Department says.

The White House said it strongly opposes the new production fees and future lease bans. Those steps could reduce domestic production, according to the administration. It views the repeal of the tax break for oil companies as unfairly singling out an industry.

That break, aimed at helping U.S. manufacturers compete against imports, has saved oil companies $700 million a year, House Democrats say.

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 6, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/



Very interesting, Nimh, thank you.


So, does this become law?


I don't really "get" what absolute power, if any, Congress has against the executive....and if Bush an block everything they do?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 12:42 am
The President of the United States can veto any bill the Congress introduces as it has to be signed by the president in order to become law. They can overcome the presidential veto if 2/3s of Congress vote to defeat the veto.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 02:24 am
talk72000 wrote:
The President of the United States can veto any bill the Congress introduces as it has to be signed by the president in order to become law. They can overcome the presidential veto if 2/3s of Congress vote to defeat the veto.



Thank you.


So, really, Congress can achieve nothing substantive if it does not have a two thirds majority?


Bush can simply veto everything?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 08:23 am
Yep.

And then there are the so-called signing statements, which Bush has used to reinterpret the meaning of hundreds of laws that were passed by Congress.

Instead of vetoing a law, it appears, he can also just sign it but add on a signing statement that redefines what the law is for and how it is to be used. Basically, "OK, so you've decided you wanna have this law, fine, but I dont agree with it so let me just rewrite how it's going to be used."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 08:35 am
So...why is there all this posturing by conservatives about a Dem congress not achieving anything?


When they cannot?


I assume, in real life, there is normally lots of horse trading, since I gather the US often does not deliver a president a majority of their party in either House....but I don't see much energy re an agenda from Bush, at this tag end of a failed presidency, that would give leverage for horse trading.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 08:59 am
dlowan wrote:
So...why is there all this posturing by conservatives about a Dem congress not achieving anything?


When they cannot?


I assume, in real life, there is normally lots of horse trading, since I gather the US often does not deliver a president a majority of their party in either House....but I don't see much energy re an agenda from Bush, at this tag end of a failed presidency, that would give leverage for horse trading.


Because the dems came into office promising to end the war, they promised to raise the minimum wage,and they made all sorts of promises and gaurantees.
So far, they have done none of those things.
They also promised to stop the wasteful, porkbarrel spending.
It turns out that they are spending just as much, if not more, on porkbarrel spending then the repubs did.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 09:04 am
mysteryman wrote:
they promised to raise the minimum wage,

They did. It was one of the very first things they did.

mysteryman wrote:
It turns out that they are spending just as much, if not more, on porkbarrel spending then the repubs did.

I'd love to see the numbers proving that..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 09:17 am
dlowan wrote:
So...why is there all this posturing by conservatives about a Dem congress not achieving anything?

When they cannot?

Because it's a talking point they think will help them win the elections, or at least limit their losses.

In the face of the Bush presidency and the Republican party in Congress having turned so incredibly impopular, the Republican strategy now is to act like the Democrats are just the same, wont really bring any change, etc. If they can make it look like you know, those Washington politicians, they're all the same, they can at least partially blunt the advantage the Dems now have in the anger that exists specifically at Republican mismanagement. And that should help in turning the elections back to just personality issues, district by district.

But as it happens, the voters are not buying it. Congress has very low approval ratings, but there's a significant difference in how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are evaluated: the Republicans do much worse.

Moreover, the voters apparently are well aware of whom the obstruction that has yielded today's gridlock comes from:

nimh wrote:
Quote:
ON HATING THE CONGRESS

The new Washington Post poll gives us more detail on what lies behind the low approval ratings the Congress has received recently. While 57% of the respondents disapprove of the job performance of the Democrats in Congress, ten percent more (for a total of 67%) disapprove of the job the Republicans in Congress are doing. [..]

And when respondents who think that the Congress has achieved little or nothing are asked to assign blame for that 51% pin it squarely on Bush and the Republicans in Congress, whereas only 25% see the Democrats in Congress as the culprits.

These findings lay to rest the conservative argument that the low approval rates of the Congress are shorthand for low approval rates of the Congressional Democrats now in majority. [..]


nimh wrote:
Quote:
June 29, 2007

POLL: CNN on Congressional Democrats and Republicans

Yet more results from the latest CNN/ORC national survey (story, results) of 1,029 adults (conducted 6/22 through 6/24):

  • Although fewer adults approve (42%) than disapprove (49%) "what the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have done so far this year," a majority says it is good (57%) rather than bad (31%) "that the Democratic Party is in control of the Congress."

  • The "Democratic Party" receives a net positive rating (51% favorable, 38% unfavorable), while the ratings of the "Republican Party" are net negative (36% favorable, 53% unfavorable).

  • Among 907 registered voters, Democrats begin with a twelve point lead (53% to 41%) in the generic Congressional vote.

source
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 02:13:38