For those of us that live outside of 'Murica, is this something that is proceeding, or is it one of those 'people introduce a lot of things, wake me when it actually gets some traction' things?
Fake edit: oh, it's at 'introduced' still, and that was over a week and a half ago.
So... back to the phone lines? Or will the invisible hand of the free market guide people away from pollution?
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Some Louisiana Congressguy was on NPR earlier today saying that Congress decided not to make Trump release his taxes because they didn't want to violate the privacy of a private citizen unless it was in order to investigate allegations of some sort of crime.
I guess "possible conflicts of interest" and "collusion with a foreign power" aren't crimes?
Several Dems have argued, "Hey look, Blue Dog gotta Blue Dog, at least I'm with you when it counts." But I'm not sure that's enough.
Also, why the hell aren't there "red dog" Republicans who have to moderate their votes to stay alive in purple districts?
Look at the senate map right now. Dems have seats in places like Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, all up next year. Very conservative places that only vote for a very specific type of Dem. Republicans have seats in... Maine, a few Rust Belt states, Colorado, and Nevada. We're talking about blue leaning swing states at best, of which only Nevada is up next year. And when we do have Republicans from true blue states, like Kirk in Illinois, they tend to get bitched out for being RINOs. Kirk was an enthusiastic supporter of the Garland nomination, he's pro-choice, he's pro-LGBT rights (as much as Dems? I don't know, but he was in favor of ENDA and a vocal opponent of HB2). Crossing the aisle to defend a tough seat is not just a Dem thing to do, we just happen to be the ones with the toughest seats right now.
Two Republican members of Congress sent a formal letter Tuesday to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, expressing concern that “approximately a dozen career EPA officials” are using the encrypted messaging app Signal to covertly plan strategy and may be running afoul of the Freedom of Information Act.
So let me get this out of the way - They are right that you shouldn't be conducting official business via text message. HOWEVER, planning and organizing and bouncing ideas off each other? That's the perfect venue for text messaging unless you need a permanent data trail. Then you move to email, and from there to meetings and formal documents.
Using the term "covertly" is a very, very loaded term. It isn't covert to want your communications encrypted. It's just common sense in the IT sector. Maybe using Signal and having it not store any records is a bit too far, but that can be solved by switching to WhatsApp.
Sad part is, I suspect this is another attempt to kneecap the EPA. LaHood's no where near the level of politician as his father, but is getting by on name recognition around here (he was swept in with the Tea Party movement). This feels like he's trying to get in the good graces of.. someone, but definitely not his constituency.
It's more that the GOP leadership (finally) realized the use of earmarks to rein in the crazy. It's hard to do anything to the Freedom Caucus, because the leadership can't hurt them. But bring back earmarks, and make it clear that either they toe the line or they get nothing - now you can do something that will have repercussions back home (because "your representative is more interested in ideology than improving your lot" is something that plays in Congressional elections.)
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
I mean, I wouldn't say that having to have earmarks is a big part of a well designed government, but our government is not well designed and clearly does not work at all without them. The sooner we can bring them back the better. Even if we just build bridges to nowhere to create jobs.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
I mean, I wouldn't say that having to have earmarks is a big part of a well designed government, but our government is not well designed and clearly does not work at all without them. The sooner we can bring them back the better. Even if we just build bridges to nowhere to create jobs.
Actually, they are. The vast majority of earmarks go to legitimate government spending. Even the infamous "bridge to nowhere" had a legitimate purpose - connecting a remote Alaskan community to the airport that was its connection to the wider world. (The problem was the over engineering and graft that it being sponsored by a senior Senator enabled.)
Honestly removing them was a failed idea and has helped along the dysfunction we've been dealing with for years.
Irony++ with the whole "Drain the swamp" rhetoric though.
Yes as bad as earmarks are we have seen what not having them brings. Earmarks were the carrot to lure people from the opposite party to vote for stuff they may not otherwise want. Without it all you have is the stick and with stuff as gerrymandered as they are the stick does not really work vs either party so you just get gridlock.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Exactly. Adding say, "We will build a new stadium in Whosville Indiana" to your "Immigration reform bill" is a sure way to get the people of Whosville to care more about why their congressman didn't vote for that bill. Sure, they may be a bit against allowing non-white people into the country, but losing out on a sweet new stadium for the Whosville School football team is almost always a much more real concern than imaginary crimes committed by imaginary immigrants that their town doesn't have.
This isn't a great way to create moderation and bipartisanship in congress and the senate, but it seems to be the only way that works.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
Calling the current administration a dumpster fire is an insult to honest dumpster fires everywhere, and the cavalcade of fail has slowed down their ability to progress during what is traditionally the most effective period for an administration. Meanwhile, the Speaker plays chief cat herder, as he deals with a significant faction that seems to enjoy the perversity of tossing bombs into his legislative plans.
It's like the dog who catches the car, and suddenly encounters a simple question - "now what?"
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
Wasn't it someone else in this thread who said that those gerrymanders are based strongly on likely voter figures, and anything that causes "unexpected" voters to turn out puts all of those carefully calculated districts into shit.
Maybe it was tbloxham ?
It's certainly true, yea. The very nature of the thing means that the GOP districts are inherently more "at risk" as it were. Generally the districts are drawn that it would still take a small miracle to flip the house (I think dems need like +10 nationally to take back the house? it's real bad) but nothing is going to cause a small miracle faster than poking around at people's healthcare.
Ahh, but thats a +10 swing amongst expected voters in expected ways. Meaning that tons more known democrats turn out in known democratic districts. In a strongly gerrymandered system like we have now, the penalized side doesn't need more votes to win. It just needs new votes to be added unstably and unpredictably across all the districts. Republican gerrymandering doesn't (for the most part) produce Republican strongholds and democratic strongholds with 90% victories in each. It produces democratic strongholds and republican close victories based on very reliable voting groups (large megachurches, big retirement homes etc)
Stability is fundamental to it working. A few % of random voters scattered around, and the whole thing falls down.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
Bad for certain establishment Republicans for certain, but as a tool to make government dysfunctional to weaken a President's message it worked wonders. But they now know that it can also be used against them, so they want them gone otherwise Democrats may play the same game. There's not much we can do to stop it if they want to do it anyway.
But it also gives their moderate members more leverage over the zealots. Which is a good thing.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
Bad for certain establishment Republicans for certain, but as a tool to make government dysfunctional to weaken a President's message it worked wonders. But they now know that it can also be used against them, so they want them gone otherwise Democrats may play the same game. But it also gives their moderate members more power over the zealots.
How can it be used against them? Like dems are still the adult party that is also big tent, so they'll side with the GOP on shit a lot more than the GOP will ever side with dems even with earmarks.
Its heads I win tails you lose. American people are fucking stupid and our congressional actions reflect that. GOP shut down the government, our country rewarded them with the senate and then the presidency. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I absolutely believe though that they'll remove earmarks the second a Dem president gets in charge again though.
I don't see why they wouldn't as part of a larger campaign of obstruction. Last time they did that it gave them complete control of the Legislative and Executive with good odds on the Judicial. That's not earmarks fault so much as the US voting population being horrible.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
Bad for certain establishment Republicans for certain, but as a tool to make government dysfunctional to weaken a President's message it worked wonders. But they now know that it can also be used against them, so they want them gone otherwise Democrats may play the same game. But it also gives their moderate members more power over the zealots.
How can it be used against them? Like dems are still the adult party that is also big tent, so they'll side with the GOP on shit a lot more than the GOP will ever side with dems even with earmarks.
Its heads I win tails you lose. American people are fucking stupid and our congressional actions reflect that. GOP shut down the government, our country rewarded them with the senate and then the presidency. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Its not about using it against them. Its about literally bribing extremist members of congress to be less extremist, and members of the opposition party to sign your bills. It creates a natural power in the center of the stage where moderate republicans get rewards for their districts by working on bills which they can persuade democrats to sign. Then your extremist becomes less appealing, because his ideological purity means you don't get a new post office, or money to fix the local high school.
Honestly, I would be happy if they brought back earmarks no matter what the circumstances of the process were.
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
Bad for certain establishment Republicans for certain, but as a tool to make government dysfunctional to weaken a President's message it worked wonders. But they now know that it can also be used against them, so they want them gone otherwise Democrats may play the same game. But it also gives their moderate members more power over the zealots.
How can it be used against them? Like dems are still the adult party that is also big tent, so they'll side with the GOP on shit a lot more than the GOP will ever side with dems even with earmarks.
Its heads I win tails you lose. American people are fucking stupid and our congressional actions reflect that. GOP shut down the government, our country rewarded them with the senate and then the presidency. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Its not about using it against them. Its about literally bribing extremist members of congress to be less extremist, and members of the opposition party to sign your bills. It creates a natural power in the center of the stage where moderate republicans get rewards for their districts by working on bills which they can persuade democrats to sign. Then your extremist becomes less appealing, because his ideological purity means you don't get a new post office, or money to fix the local high school.
I don't think earmarks will be used in the trump admin to do anything moderate. If anything it'll be used against whatever is considered a moderate in the GOP caucus to sign on with really regressive awful things.
The new bar for the GOP is Donald Trump, that's their baseline, you can't earmark your way to a mythical moderate gop.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I doubt that bringing earmarks back will help Ryan. He's running the the dumbfuck crowd that got rid of them and this is also the dumbfuck crowd that is claiming all the protests against them are illegitimate because all those protesters aren't really protesters, they're shills. I also wouldn't expect anything moderate out of those, since we'be got the crowd that thinks they are the real america and that compromise is them getting everything they want plus things they never knew they wanted. Granted, given the GOP mo of taking something that is good or useful and then corrupting it into something dysfunctional or vile, they'll probably ensure that we get plenty of graft and waste with the new earmarks.
I'm waiting for the congressman around here to have something, but he is in hiding.
I debate between two things. First, try to find something where Ryan and Trump are at odds, and force him to pick a position. The alternative is something where Pence and Trump are at odds, because I live in Indiana and it will be fun to see which one he picks.
Posts
Most of them got purged with the tea party stuff.
Fake edit: oh, it's at 'introduced' still, and that was over a week and a half ago.
So... back to the phone lines? Or will the invisible hand of the free market guide people away from pollution?
What do you think Susan Collins is?
The author of The Hunger Games?
Eh, if this is the bill I'm thinking of, no one anywhere close to leadership will support it.
Wake me when there is a committee hearing
I guess "possible conflicts of interest" and "collusion with a foreign power" aren't crimes?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's not how any of this works.
And yet!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Look at the senate map right now. Dems have seats in places like Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, all up next year. Very conservative places that only vote for a very specific type of Dem. Republicans have seats in... Maine, a few Rust Belt states, Colorado, and Nevada. We're talking about blue leaning swing states at best, of which only Nevada is up next year. And when we do have Republicans from true blue states, like Kirk in Illinois, they tend to get bitched out for being RINOs. Kirk was an enthusiastic supporter of the Garland nomination, he's pro-choice, he's pro-LGBT rights (as much as Dems? I don't know, but he was in favor of ENDA and a vocal opponent of HB2). Crossing the aisle to defend a tough seat is not just a Dem thing to do, we just happen to be the ones with the toughest seats right now.
It's also not how grammar works. The sentence you are looking for there is...
"The environmental protection agency shall be terminated on December 31st 2018"
The bill they have written is asking the EPA to terminate something that they haven't specified.
My representative has decided to show he has no concept of what security is.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/house-members-epa-officials-may-be-using-signal-to-spread-their-goals-covertly/
So let me get this out of the way - They are right that you shouldn't be conducting official business via text message. HOWEVER, planning and organizing and bouncing ideas off each other? That's the perfect venue for text messaging unless you need a permanent data trail. Then you move to email, and from there to meetings and formal documents.
Using the term "covertly" is a very, very loaded term. It isn't covert to want your communications encrypted. It's just common sense in the IT sector. Maybe using Signal and having it not store any records is a bit too far, but that can be solved by switching to WhatsApp.
Sad part is, I suspect this is another attempt to kneecap the EPA. LaHood's no where near the level of politician as his father, but is getting by on name recognition around here (he was swept in with the Tea Party movement). This feels like he's trying to get in the good graces of.. someone, but definitely not his constituency.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/house-republicans-earmarks/index.html
Honestly removing them was a failed idea and has helped along the dysfunction we've been dealing with for years.
Irony++ with the whole "Drain the swamp" rhetoric though.
It's more that the GOP leadership (finally) realized the use of earmarks to rein in the crazy. It's hard to do anything to the Freedom Caucus, because the leadership can't hurt them. But bring back earmarks, and make it clear that either they toe the line or they get nothing - now you can do something that will have repercussions back home (because "your representative is more interested in ideology than improving your lot" is something that plays in Congressional elections.)
We need earmarks to have a functional government. Obviously that is a long, long, long way from where we are currently standing, but it's a good step.
You are aware that they're only bringing it back now because they are in a position to exploit it. The moment they lose the Executive or Senate they'll scream about Dem Corruption and take it away again. This is a grifter's game.
They're the ones who removed them.
They're bringing them back to help bring their insane wing (Freedom Caucus) back in line.
I mean, I wouldn't say that having to have earmarks is a big part of a well designed government, but our government is not well designed and clearly does not work at all without them. The sooner we can bring them back the better. Even if we just build bridges to nowhere to create jobs.
Yes, I know.
Dem President? "Drain the Swamp!"
Pub President? "Functional Government!"
They can play this for decades and the public would be none the wiser.
Except that's not the game. The removal of earmarks coincided with the rise of the Teapers, and I seriously doubt that was coincidence. Earmarks have always been a tool of the leadership to run herd on the rank and file - the push to remove them necessarily weakened the ability of the leadership to control subordinates, as well as making representatives less accountable to their districts.
Actually, they are. The vast majority of earmarks go to legitimate government spending. Even the infamous "bridge to nowhere" had a legitimate purpose - connecting a remote Alaskan community to the airport that was its connection to the wider world. (The problem was the over engineering and graft that it being sponsored by a senior Senator enabled.)
Yes as bad as earmarks are we have seen what not having them brings. Earmarks were the carrot to lure people from the opposite party to vote for stuff they may not otherwise want. Without it all you have is the stick and with stuff as gerrymandered as they are the stick does not really work vs either party so you just get gridlock.
Exactly. Adding say, "We will build a new stadium in Whosville Indiana" to your "Immigration reform bill" is a sure way to get the people of Whosville to care more about why their congressman didn't vote for that bill. Sure, they may be a bit against allowing non-white people into the country, but losing out on a sweet new stadium for the Whosville School football team is almost always a much more real concern than imaginary crimes committed by imaginary immigrants that their town doesn't have.
This isn't a great way to create moderation and bipartisanship in congress and the senate, but it seems to be the only way that works.
Yup they were the sugar to help people take their medicine and sell it to their voting base of stuff that normally tastes bad but is good for you. This way they can say hey look I got you this school or this bridge even though you may not have liked this farm bill or what have you it let your voters see the bill did something concrete that benefited them. Without it most normal people have no way to tell what if anything their reps do and you wind up with the highly polarized nonsense we have now. It was tried it seemed like a good idea at the time but clearly has proven to be a failed plan and should be reverted.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Oh, it was known to be a bad idea at the time too, the Republicans just didn't realize that it was their own base which would be most affected by it. They thought that it would make the democrats, the party which likes government to help them, hate their representatives and vote them out. Instead, what they discovered is that (just like democrats had always said), its Republicans who live on the government dime and losing out on all their sweetheart infrastructure and military basing projects made all the heartland towns they represented ripe for even more hatred of the government.
TLDR, it was supposed to shift democratic voters to the right. It ended up shifting Republican voters to the right. Which has been a disaster for the business interests in the US government which introduced the idea.
And it got them the house senate and presidency so how was it bad for the right?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Calling the current administration a dumpster fire is an insult to honest dumpster fires everywhere, and the cavalcade of fail has slowed down their ability to progress during what is traditionally the most effective period for an administration. Meanwhile, the Speaker plays chief cat herder, as he deals with a significant faction that seems to enjoy the perversity of tossing bombs into his legislative plans.
It's like the dog who catches the car, and suddenly encounters a simple question - "now what?"
Ahh, but thats a +10 swing amongst expected voters in expected ways. Meaning that tons more known democrats turn out in known democratic districts. In a strongly gerrymandered system like we have now, the penalized side doesn't need more votes to win. It just needs new votes to be added unstably and unpredictably across all the districts. Republican gerrymandering doesn't (for the most part) produce Republican strongholds and democratic strongholds with 90% victories in each. It produces democratic strongholds and republican close victories based on very reliable voting groups (large megachurches, big retirement homes etc)
Stability is fundamental to it working. A few % of random voters scattered around, and the whole thing falls down.
Bad for certain establishment Republicans for certain, but as a tool to make government dysfunctional to weaken a President's message it worked wonders. But they now know that it can also be used against them, so they want them gone otherwise Democrats may play the same game. There's not much we can do to stop it if they want to do it anyway.
But it also gives their moderate members more leverage over the zealots. Which is a good thing.
How can it be used against them? Like dems are still the adult party that is also big tent, so they'll side with the GOP on shit a lot more than the GOP will ever side with dems even with earmarks.
Its heads I win tails you lose. American people are fucking stupid and our congressional actions reflect that. GOP shut down the government, our country rewarded them with the senate and then the presidency. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't see why they wouldn't as part of a larger campaign of obstruction. Last time they did that it gave them complete control of the Legislative and Executive with good odds on the Judicial. That's not earmarks fault so much as the US voting population being horrible.
But I sure as shit don't want this government to be more functional.
Its not about using it against them. Its about literally bribing extremist members of congress to be less extremist, and members of the opposition party to sign your bills. It creates a natural power in the center of the stage where moderate republicans get rewards for their districts by working on bills which they can persuade democrats to sign. Then your extremist becomes less appealing, because his ideological purity means you don't get a new post office, or money to fix the local high school.
I don't think earmarks will be used in the trump admin to do anything moderate. If anything it'll be used against whatever is considered a moderate in the GOP caucus to sign on with really regressive awful things.
The new bar for the GOP is Donald Trump, that's their baseline, you can't earmark your way to a mythical moderate gop.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The depressing thing is that I don't know what I'd ask if given the opportunity since you know, a week is a LONG time this year.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I debate between two things. First, try to find something where Ryan and Trump are at odds, and force him to pick a position. The alternative is something where Pence and Trump are at odds, because I live in Indiana and it will be fun to see which one he picks.