You CANNOT MAKE IT UP
Those ‘too’ concerned with burgeoning interest on debt, and out of control, inefficient spending to increase the debt today will be ineligible to make reasoned
decision on spending later because they are too concerned about the debt to increase it on principle?
Weekly Std:
The debt ceiling deal will pass the Senate early this afternoon. No suspense there. But the vote will be worth watching for another reason: Three Republican Senate sources tell TWS that senators who vote against the deal will be ineligible to serve on the so-called “supercommittee” for deficit reduction that the legislation creates.While there’s certain logic to such a policy, it could be self-defeating. Excluding those who vote against the debt deal will ensure that some of the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate Republican caucus, including most of its freshmen, will be reading about the committee’s activities in the newspaper rather than guiding its decisions. Among those who have already declared their opposition to the deal: libertarian-leaning senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul; Jim DeMint, the aggressive fiscal hawk from South Carolina; conservative reformers Ron Johnson from Wisconsin and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania; the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, Jeff Sessions; and Florida’s Marco Rubio, already one of the highest-profile conservatives in Congress.
More worrisome for conservatives, however, is that private whip counts in the Senate found that some 20 Republicans expressed support for the proposals that came out of the Gang of Six. And while many of the components of that plan have merit as individual policy proposals, the package involves compromises on taxes anathema to most conservatives.
- US debt crisis: political factions that will influence the deal (telegraph.co.uk)
- Litmus Test for GOP Senators (politicalwire.com)
- Senate conservatives say they don’t plan to delay consideration of debt-limit deal (thehill.com)
- Durbin doesn’t know just 51 votes needed to pass a budget in the Senate (hotair.com)
Spain, Germany and I think Switzerland also have rules about those that vote against a bill or law cannot be part of the implementation committees on the bill for the reason of non-commitance (ie not committed to support it, could sabotage or at minimum be a bad representative to it).
ReplyDeleteI see nothing wrong on such a method.
Damien Charles,
ReplyDeleteWe do things differently here. This is not Europe.
If those folks are not allowed to serve on the super committee, those folks will not be able to represent their constituents.
Simply put, this cutting off of those who voted against the debt deal is an attempt at oligarchic tyranny. Dangerous, I tell you!
Another example of how different we are.
ReplyDeleteThey would not only be denying the constituents of, in this case, about 20 states out, they would denying representation that increasing debt at all is wrong, that spending should be only in line with revenue.
That is insane.
Only those who think higher debt is ok would serve on the committee to reduce debt?
OMG
Personally I am incredibly dissapointed with the result that was made, I find the concept of increasing the debt-ceiling more than innapropriate when the income of the government has increased significantly and spending ballooned. What is needed is a total overhaul, a bit of "get back to the basics" and a realization by the population in general that everyone must bite the bullet and accept even tax-increases.
ReplyDeleteAs for my comment, I am looking at it from the perspective that if a supercommittee is being formed, do you want those that are against its existance and did not support the bill in the first place on such a committee? Is that not a recipe for those, say the tea-party activists, to get another chance to derail it? Do you not prefer people who were supporting the subject matter (Rep, Dem or Ind) to be on it as they will take the matter seriously?
I accept that I am from a different system but frankly once the bill was accepted and signed is not the topic now national and not subject to the whims of constituancy?
"Surely this is the United States, not the Federated States of America, it it not?" - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1957 addressing a joint sitting of Congress in regards to members representing their Nation and not their States in committees.
correction: "when the income of the government has DECREASED significantly "
ReplyDelete(I blame the iPads keyboard functionality)