PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues bipartisan deficit commission. What happened?


BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 05:10 PM
I thought this was a Republican idea. Sponsored by 7 Republicancs. Dems get behind it and Obama signs on, its a done deal. Niow I hear that the 7 Republicans who sponsored the bill pulled their support for their own bill. My question is why? Anyone got an answer?

patteeu
02-02-2010, 06:01 PM
When you say "bipartisan commission", do you mean the 10 democrat, 8 Republican idea of the President's? The one that also requires the Senate to agree to the tax-raising tool called "paygo"?

Do you still have a question about why Republicans would oppose such a commission?

patteeu
02-02-2010, 06:02 PM
Would the President and Congressional democrats agree to a bipartisan commission made up of 10 Republicans and 8 democrats with a binding rule that requires spending decreases to offset any spending increases or tax cuts?

orange
02-02-2010, 06:03 PM
When you say "bipartisan commission", do you mean the 10 democrat, 8 Republican idea of the President's? The one that also requires the Senate to agree to the tax-raising tool called "paygo"?

Do you still have a question about why Republicans would oppose such a commission?

Democrats ARE the majority. It should be 12-8. 10-8 is a concession.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 06:24 PM
That 2010 budget B.O. laid out sure is tackling the deficit.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 06:27 PM
When you say "bipartisan commission", do you mean the 10 democrat, 8 Republican idea of the President's? The one that also requires the Senate to agree to the tax-raising tool called "paygo"?

Do you still have a question about why Republicans would oppose such a commission?Why did they sponsor the bill?

petegz28
02-02-2010, 07:02 PM
Democrats ARE the majority. It should be 12-8. 10-8 is a concession.

Sorrym I disagree. In Comittees, yes. In special commissions, no. It should be even on both sides.

sportsman1
02-02-2010, 07:15 PM
He cut funding to abstinence programs also. Mister programs sure has an interesting way to choosing how to "lower" the budget.

orange
02-02-2010, 07:28 PM
Sorrym I disagree. In Comittees, yes. In special commissions, no. It should be even on both sides.


Of the 18 panel members, 10 would be Democrats, including two from the administration, and eight would be Republicans. To encourage bipartisan support for the recommendations, 14 of the 18 members must agree to them. The measure has 27 cosponsors, including 12 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1209/120909cdpm2.htm

The Administration's representatives are going to be Democrats - no two ways around that. The Congressional representatives were to be evenly split.

This was a red herring thrown out by patteau.

Also, it was the brainchild of Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg - not Obama; he just supports it. Another red herring.

When you say "bipartisan commission", do you mean the 10 democrat, 8 Republican idea of the President's?

patteeu
02-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Democrats ARE the majority. It should be 12-8. 10-8 is a concession.

Can't stop playing politics, huh? If you and the democrats insist on trying to gain partisan advantage then you can go ahead and try to force it through just like anything else.

orange
02-02-2010, 07:52 PM
The measure has 27 cosponsors, including 12 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

Most of the cosponsors were Republicans.

You're the one playing politics. This was as bipartisan as any Congress/Executive Commission could ever get.

Please post ANYTHING by ANY Senator suggesting they voted against this because it wasn't bipartisan enough.

Until then, I repeat - this was a red herring thrown out by patteau.


David Broder - "Conrad told me the names of six Republicans who had once supported the bill but ended by voting no. Gregg, in a separate interview, confirmed the list, saying, “We couldn’t hold them against the pressure.”

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/30/politics-kills-bipartisan-deficit-bill/

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:01 PM
Why did they sponsor the bill?

They didn't. This is a democrat formulation. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the subtlety escapes you since you seem to be oblivious to the dramatic difference between uncomfortably high Bush deficits and monumentally high, security-threatening, next-generation-devastating Obama deficits.

Just as order-of-magnitude is important when evalating different deficits, details are important when comparing commission proposals.

orange
02-02-2010, 08:04 PM
They didn't. This is a democrat formulation.

BS. MOST of the cosponsors were REPUBLICANS. See above.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained adamantly opposed, right up to the end.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/30/politics-kills-bipartisan-deficit-bill/





Sen. George V. Voinovich just might have said something that got President Barack Obama's attention last week when the Ohio Republican urged the president to push for a congressionally approved, bipartisan deficit-busting commission armed with real legislative teeth.

A vote is expected as early as today on the proposal long advocated by Voinovich and adopted in legislative form in December by the top members of the Senate Budget Committee: Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and ranking minority member Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/26/copy/voinovich_commission.ART_ART_01-26-10_B3_5HGDKS0.html?adsec=politics&sid=101


Why do you keep giving air to that lie?

HonestChieffan
02-02-2010, 08:07 PM
The entire thing fell apart for the simple reason it was and is a totally Bogus idea.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:07 PM
Most of the cosponsors were Republicans.

You're the one playing politics. This was as bipartisan as any Congress/Executive Commission could ever get.

Please post ANYTHING by ANY Senator suggesting they voted against this because it wasn't bipartisan enough.

Until then, I repeat - this was a red herring thrown out by patteau.


David Broder - "Conrad told me the names of six ROepublicans who had once supported the bill but ended by voting no. Gregg, in a separate interview, confirmed the list, saying, “We couldn’t hold them against the pressure.”

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/30/politics-kills-bipartisan-deficit-bill/

No, bipartisan as it could get would be equal numbers of representatives with each side selecting their own. No Republican selected by the POTUS counts as a Republican by my calculation either. Let me know when you're willing to set aside politics and focus on addressing the nation's financial problems.

orange
02-02-2010, 08:09 PM
Let me know when you're willing to set aside politics and focus on addressing the nation's financial problems.

Shortly after you answer my challenge:

Please post ANYTHING by ANY Senator suggesting they voted against this because it wasn't bipartisan enough.

Until then, I repeat - this was a red herring thrown out by patteau.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:13 PM
BS. MOST of the cosponsors were REPUBLICANS. See above.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained adamantly opposed, right up to the end.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/30/politics-kills-bipartisan-deficit-bill/





Sen. George V. Voinovich just might have said something that got President Barack Obama's attention last week when the Ohio Republican urged the president to push for a congressionally approved, bipartisan deficit-busting commission armed with real legislative teeth.

A vote is expected as early as today on the proposal long advocated by Voinovich and adopted in legislative form in December by the top members of the Senate Budget Committee: Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and ranking minority member Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/26/copy/voinovich_commission.ART_ART_01-26-10_B3_5HGDKS0.html?adsec=politics&sid=101


Why do you keep giving air to that lie?

Forget the political posturing of the co-sponsor BS. Who drafted this proposal?

Whoever drafted it (and I'd be shocked to find out it came from a Republican), I'm sure glad the Republicans came to their senses and didn't support this partisan-rigged wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:14 PM
The entire thing fell apart for the simple reason it was and is a totally Bogus idea.

Absolutely

orange
02-02-2010, 08:16 PM
Forget the political posturing of the co-sponsor BS. Who drafted this proposal?

Whoever drafted it (and I'd be shocked to find out it came from a Republican)

Gregg (R) and Conrad (D) are given credit for it. You have other information?

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 08:20 PM
Absolutelyso those 15 Republicans had a bad idea too?

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:21 PM
orange, I'll answer your challenge later tonight when I get home. I'm on a mobile device right now and it's too much of a pain to copy and paste.

orange
02-02-2010, 08:25 PM
orange, I'll answer your challenge later tonight when I get home. I'm on a mobile device right now and it's too much of a pain to copy and paste.

Here's some of what Judd Gregg said on his own website, in the meantime:

“Congress feels entitled to spend with a blank check and little regard for the future of our
economic stability,” said Senator Gregg. “We are swimming in a sea of red ink that will drown any
chance our children have for prosperity or even a decent standard of living. It is no longer enough
for Congress to simply talk about reform; it is time for action and leadership. A bipartisan,
fast-track process is the best way to arrive at workable solutions that will get results. We owe it to
the Americans who depend on these retirement and health care programs, as well as our children
who will pay for them, to fix our broken entitlement system and make it affordable once more.”

The Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009 represents an updated
version of the task force bill introduced by Senators Conrad and Gregg in 2007. It is designed to
create a bipartisan legislative solution to the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance.

“Those who insist there is no crisis are undermining the very programs they seek to protect,”
said Conrad and Gregg. “Both Social Security and Medicare are currently cash negative and
headed for insolvency. We need to reform these programs so they are preserved for current and
future generations. And everything needs to be on the table, including spending and revenues.”

The bill establishes an 18-member task force comprised of ten Democrats and eight
Republicans. The panel would have bipartisan co-chairs. It would consist entirely of
currently-serving members of Congress selected by Democratic and Republican Congressional
leaders, as well as the Treasury Secretary and one other administration official selected by the
President.

...

Importantly, the task force would ensure a bipartisan outcome. Broad bipartisan agreement
would be required to move anything forward. Fourteen of the 18 Task Force members would have
to agree to report the recommendations. And final passage would require supermajorities in both
the Senate and House.

http://gregg.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=4a331dcc-38fe-4f5d-ac43-8d5869adc94f


Much more here including:

Gregg blasted opponents of the plan, saying that they “kill everything at the starting line.”

The fact that the proposal is being attacked by “people on the right and the left just means that the approach will work,” Gregg said.

...

Gregg said he plans to press on with the issue to force the commission’s opponents to confront the debt issue.

“Everybody who’s a naysayer needs to be tested,” Gregg said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/75357-gregg-fiscal-commission-bill-doesnt-have-the-votes


Requiring a supermajority would give the proposal legitimacy, Gregg says, adding that no one would accept a resolution to the deficit issue unless it was perceived as absolutely fair and bipartisan.

"When you run into these types of very complex and difficult questions," he says, "doing it this way appears to me to be the only way you're going to accomplish it — set up a procedure that leads to a policy, which leads to action, and that's our goal."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122466410

mlyonsd
02-02-2010, 08:45 PM
If you're looking to blame someone why not include the 22 democrats that voted against it too?

orange
02-02-2010, 09:22 PM
The entire thing fell apart for the simple reason it was and is a totally Bogus idea.

Absolutely

The task force "is an excellent idea.... (it) is going in the right direction and I hope you succeed," (Alan) Greenspan said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9362176

At a Senate committee hearing, Greenspan called the proposal for a commission, pushed by Sens. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), an “excellent idea.”

Adding a dash of urgency, he also gave a grim assessment of the U.S. government’s deficit picture, saying the “challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at any time in our history.” That’s in part because Congress has “limited” ability to reduce long-term entitlement obligations to politically powerful seniors, he said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/17/greenspan-commission-to-shrink-the-deficit-is-excellent-idea/tab/article/

Taco John
02-02-2010, 10:09 PM
What's the point of passing "bi-partisan" legislation in the days of the signing statement? All you're doing is giving the other side a victory, and letting them neuter the bill in their post-legislative interpretation.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:29 PM
You guys are getting a couple of different proposals confused. Senator Gregg voted in favor of the Congressional commission that he and Senator Conrad proposed. Here's the rollcall (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00005).

Shortly after you answer my challenge:

Please post ANYTHING by ANY Senator suggesting they voted against this because it wasn't bipartisan enough.

Until then, I repeat - this was a red herring thrown out by patteau

OK, here you go. Senator Gregg opposed the deal being brokered between the President and Congressional democrats for a Presidential commission as an alternative to the Congressional commission. From The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/77147-gop-opposition-threatens-fiscal-commission-agreement):

"They're suggesting that they create this vehicle, which is an executive order, which is by definition partisan, and the whole purpose of the commission was to be bipartisan," Gregg told reporters Wednesday.

Senator Voinovich also had problems with the Presidential version.

"The problem is, 'Are you really going to get the vote on [the panel's proposals]?" Voinovich said. "And I think that it puts the control of this thing pretty much in the hands of the president."

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:37 PM
Speaking of bipartisanship, while BRC and orange were wrong about Gregg opposing the legislation that he himself co-sponsored, it was scuttled not by a united front of Republicans but by an equal split of 23 Republicans and 23 democrats/independents.

I think our country has had enough of the partisan games that people like BRC, orange, and the President are trying to play. I guarantee that Congressional Republicans would be willing to support a commission that was made up of an equal number of Republicans (selected by Republicans) and democrats (selected by democrats) as long as the recommendations were guaranteed an up or down vote without amendments. Until the democrats are willing to stop seeking a partisan advantage on this issue, Republicans are right to oppose it.

dirk digler
02-02-2010, 10:50 PM
Here is the real reason. Congress doesn't want to be held accountable for their spending and that goes for both parties.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/77937-senate-expected-to-defeat-fiscal-commission-measure

The Senate is expected on Tuesday to reject an amendment creating a fiscal commission that would recommend deficit-cutting measures Congress would have to vote on.

The vote would prompt President Barack Obama and centrist Democrats to turn to their backup plan of creating a commission by executive order, a move that could be announced by the president as early as Wednesday in his State of the Union address.

The creation of a bipartisan fiscal commission is key to Senate passage of an increase in the $12.4 trillion debt limit, which the Obama administration said is necessary to allow the federal government to operate and borrow money past mid-February.

Obama announced his support for a commission over the weekend, but it’s not expected to be enough to deliver the 60 Senate votes necessary for passage, according to Senate aides.

Senior senators from both parties oppose it. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) argued Monday that it would undermine the power of elected officials, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Sunday it would lead to tax hikes.

The amendment would attach legislation creating the commission to a $1.9 trillion federal debt ceiling increase.

Supporters say creating the panel is the only way to get lawmakers to deal with the country’s $12.3 trillion debt. They argue Congress isn’t willing to take up politically perilous measures such as tax increases, spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs that are needed to reduce trillion-dollar annual deficits. (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/77937-senate-expected-to-defeat-fiscal-commission-measure)
(http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/77937-senate-expected-to-defeat-fiscal-commission-measure)

dirk digler
02-02-2010, 10:56 PM
And this

All recommendations would need the support of 14 out of the 18 commission members, and then the recommendations would go to the House and Senate. They would have to pass them with an up-or-down vote, but that vote would require a 3/5 supermajority to pass the Senate AND the House. In other words, this approach adds MORE minority veto points and obstacles than what already exists in our paralyzed Congress.

Nevertheless, such a commission would essentially take away lawmaking powers from the legislative branch, forcing them to contemplate deficit reduction legislation without being able to alter it through amendments

orange
02-02-2010, 11:06 PM
You guys are getting a couple of different proposals confused. Senator Gregg voted in favor of the Congressional commission that he and Senator Conrad proposed. Here's the rollcall (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00005).


No YOU'RE the one who's confused. The original post and ALL of this debate was and is about the Bill before the Senate that had 33 cosponsors and was defeated. NOT about the rumored alternative that Obama is supposedly considering since the Senate dropped the ball.

Speaking of bipartisanship, while BRC and orange were wrong about Gregg opposing the legislation that he himself co-sponsored


Utterly ****ing ridiculous! I have been nothing short of ADAMANT that Gregg was behind this Bill from beginning to end. See my previous four posts on the matter - including one MOCKING YOUR CLAIM that no Republican had a hand in crafting this Bill!

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 11:12 PM
I think our country has had enough of the partisan games that people like BRC, orange, and the President are trying to play.The Republicans sponsored the bill. When Obama says okay I support it, The Republicans vote against their own bill. Pot meet kettle.

Where was the bi-partisanship you speak of under Bush? When he was borrowing $1.1 trillion from the chinese and ramming it through congress as a budger reconciliation where was the bi-partisanship?

Mccain and Graham were for cap and trade, now Obama is for it, they are against it.

I could provide you a list of Republicans that supported some of Obamas ideas but now they are supported by Obamas, they are agaisnt it. The party of no label is well deserved.

dirk digler
02-02-2010, 11:16 PM
McCain was all for replealing DADT if the Joint Chiefs said so:

And I understand the opposition to it, and I've had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

Now it is a no. What a double talker.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 11:19 PM
Speaking of bipartisanship, while BRC and orange were wrong about Gregg opposing the legislation that he himself co-sponsored, it was scuttled not by a united front of Republicans but by an equal split of 23 Republicans and 23 democrats/independents.

I think our country has had enough of the partisan games that people like BRC, orange, and the President are trying to play. I guarantee that Congressional Republicans would be willing to support a commission that was made up of an equal number of Republicans (selected by Republicans) and democrats (selected by democrats) as long as the recommendations were guaranteed an up or down vote without amendments. Until the democrats are willing to stop seeking a partisan advantage on this issue, Republicans are right to oppose it.Pot meet kettle.

The Republicans were for it and then Obama saud good idea and they vote agaisnt their own bill.

McCain and Graham were for cap and trade. Now Obama is for it, they are agaisnt it.

I could provide you with a list of Republicans that before Obama was elected favored somne of the ideas/proposals that he has submitted. But, now since Obama supoorts it, they are against it.

Where was this bi-partisanship under Bush? Where was it when he was borrowing $1.1 trillion from the chinese and ramming it through congress as tax cuts for the wealthy using budget reconciliation? When they allowed oil companies to drill on public land using budge reconciliation?

orange
02-02-2010, 11:22 PM
McCain was all for replealing DADT if the Joint Chiefs said so:


Now it is a no. What a double talker.

Indeed.

p.s. Your post #28 above is broken. I had to put you on "ignore" to load the previous page.

[edit] problem fixed.

dirk digler
02-02-2010, 11:31 PM
Indeed.

p.s. Your post #28 above is broken. I had to put you on "ignore" to load the previous page.

Weird. I edited it so hopefully it works now.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:47 PM
No YOU'RE the one who's confused. The original post and ALL of this debate was and is about the Bill before the Senate that had 33 cosponsors and was defeated. NOT about the rumored alternative that Obama is supposedly considering since the Senate dropped the ball.



Utterly ****ing ridiculous! I have been nothing short of ADAMANT that Gregg was behind this Bill from beginning to end. See my previous four posts on the matter - including one MOCKING YOUR CLAIM that no Republican had a hand in crafting this Bill!

The OP can't be about the Senate bill since it claims that the Republican sponsors all opposed it and as I've pointed out, Sen. Gregg, the chief Republican sponsor voted Aye. If you were talking about the Senate bill all along, my apologies, but I also have to wonder why you didn't bother to correct BRC's misconception about who torpedoed it.

I was talking about the Presidential commission and the attempt to get Congress to agree to go along with it. Gregg opposed that one after having been a sponsor AND ultimately a supporter of the Senate bill. It looks to me like BRC was conflating the two.

You guys make up your mind about what partisan attack you want to make over this and let me know. When you get your ducks in order, we can talk about it.

orange
02-02-2010, 11:53 PM
The OP can't be about the Senate bill since it claims that the Republican sponsors all opposed it and as I've pointed out, Sen. Gregg, the chief Republican sponsor voted Aye. If you were talking about the Senate bill all along, my apologies, but I also have to wonder why you didn't bother to correct BRC's misconception about who torpedoed it.

I was talking about the Presidential commission and the attempt to get Congress to agree to go along with it. Gregg opposed that one after having been a sponsor AND ultimately a supporter of the Senate bill. It looks to me like BRC was conflating the two.

You guys make up your mind about what partisan attack you want to make over this and let me know. When you get your ducks in order, we can talk about it.

The original post mentions 7 cosponsors who changed their minds. This was in error in suggesting that those were ALL the Republican cosponsors (the Bill had I think 21 R's at one point) - but that number is probably related to the 6 turncoats that Broder mentions: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6500257&postcount=9

That post HAS to be about the Gregg Bill - it's the only one the Senate has considered. They will have no say in Obama's Executive Order if it comes about.

patteeu
02-03-2010, 12:02 AM
The Republicans sponsored the bill. When Obama says okay I support it, The Republicans vote against their own bill. Pot meet kettle.

Where was the bi-partisanship you speak of under Bush? When he was borrowing $1.1 trillion from the chinese and ramming it through congress as a budger reconciliation where was the bi-partisanship?

Mccain and Graham were for cap and trade, now Obama is for it, they are against it.

I could provide you a list of Republicans that supported some of Obamas ideas but now they are supported by Obamas, they are agaisnt it. The party of no label is well deserved.

Let's stick to the subject (whatever it was supposed to be). Your OP appears to be a mishmash of conflicting information. My suggestion is that you take a breath, get your facts straight, and restate the OP in a way that we all know what we're supposed to be talking about. Who sponsored what bill and what happened in the vote?

If you're talking about the Senate amendment sponsored by Conrad (D) and co-sponsored by 8 Republicans, 13 democrats, and 1 Independent, which is what orange seems to be talking about, then you're wrong about Republican co-sponsors withdrawing their support. Here are the 8 Republican co-sponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP3302:) and their ultimate votes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00005):

Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - Aye
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - Aye
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - Aye
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] - Aye
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - Aye
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - Aye
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - Aye
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL] - Aye

Not a single nay vote among them.

patteeu
02-03-2010, 12:15 AM
The original post mentions 7 cosponsors who changed their minds. This was in error in suggesting that those were ALL the Republican cosponsors (the Bill had I think 21 R's at one point) - but that number is probably related to the 6 turncoats that Broder mentions: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6500257&postcount=9

That post HAS to be about the Gregg Bill - it's the only one the Senate has considered. They will have no say in Obama's Executive Order if it comes about.

OK, fair enough. Senator McConnell explains (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mcconnell-makes-excuses-republicans-voting) that he withdrew his support for the Conrad-Gregg amendment because he preferred an alternative spending reduction commission and because he feared that the Conrad-Gregg commission was likely to become a tax increase commission.

I'm just happy that the Republicans aren't getting themselves stuck on to a commission that is unbalanced in favor of democrats. If we really want bipartisan solutions, what's wrong with having a commission made up of an equal number of democrats and Republicans?

orange
02-03-2010, 12:17 AM
Original cosponsors of the Conrad/Gregg Amendment from Sen. Gregg's website
http://gregg.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=4a331dcc-38fe-4f5d-ac43-8d5869adc94f:

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Senator Mark Udall (D-CO)
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)
Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Senator George LeMieux (R-FL)
Senator George Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Those in red voted NAY.

That's five. The other two were probably later joiners.

[edit]

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) abstained
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2853


Those 7 AYES would have passed the Bill.

QED

orange
02-03-2010, 12:26 AM
THEN:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:IV6zlu-LZh8J:senatorsambrownback.blogspot.com/2009/12/brownback-co-sponsors-bipartisan-task.html+bipartisan+task+force+for+responsible+fiscal+action+cosponsors&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

orange
02-03-2010, 12:26 AM
NOW:
http://senatorsambrownback.blogspot.com/2009/12/brownback-co-sponsors-bipartisan-task.html

patteeu
02-03-2010, 12:42 AM
THEN:

NOW:

Yes, you would expect someone who withdraws his support for a piece of legislation to take down the page on which he was expressing that support.

orange
02-03-2010, 12:44 AM
Yes, you would expect someone who withdraws his support for a piece of legislation to take down the page on which he was expressing that support.

I might have expected an explanation or update instead of just hiding from it.

But that's just me.

Norman Einstein
02-03-2010, 05:50 AM
The bill was rejected, but there is no link to the bill for anyone here to read.

Was the bill changed from the original intent that made it unappetizing for people to sign?

Is there a possibility the bill failed because it went from a decent idea to a shitty one before it was voted on?

The 7 Republicans that the argument is about might have seen those changes from the original bill and disagreed.

I have not read the bill, nor have I seen any exerpts from it. Should it have been passed? The argument here seems to be the people that have R's that voted against it, is that all this is about or wanting to know what the bill is/was all about.

BigRedChief
02-03-2010, 07:32 AM
The original post mentions 7 cosponsors who changed their minds. This was in error in suggesting that those were ALL the Republican cosponsors (the Bill had I think 21 R's at one point) - but that number is probably related to the 6 turncoats that Broder mentions: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6500257&postcount=9

That post HAS to be about the Gregg Bill - it's the only one the Senate has considered. They will have no say in Obama's Executive Order if it comes about.
This is what I was talking about. I said 7 Republicans when it was really 6.

This kind of flew below my radar. Thats why I posted it. I knew very little about it, so sorry for the confusion.

I don't think politicians in Washington will ever take on the special interests and do whats right for america, I don't think that they will ever tackle the 3rd rail issues in a meaniful way. And until that day, there will be no "real" change in America. No "hope" that the people's wishes will be done.

The Republicans were for a lot of the things Obama is proposing before Obama proposed them. Now they are against them. I don't understand the flip flops.

I know Pelosi is a dipshit partisan hack and it is Obama's fault for not trying to rein her partisan BS in more. But there is a seperation of powers in the constitution for a reason. The President can't just dictate to Congress whatever the hell they want to. But, that being said some frikking leadership is needed to get the partisan hacks on both sides to tone it down.

BigRedChief
02-03-2010, 07:34 AM
Yes, you would expect someone who withdraws his support for a piece of legislation to take down the page on which he was expressing that support.Can't you withdraw as a sponsor of a bill? Why didn't that happen?

patteeu
02-03-2010, 08:06 AM
This is what I was talking about. I said 7 Republicans when it was really 6.

This kind of flew below my radar. Thats why I posted it. I knew very little about it, so sorry for the confusion.

I don't think politicians in Washington will ever take on the special interests and do whats right for america, I don't think that they will ever tackle the 3rd rail issues in a meaniful way. And until that day, there will be no "real" change in America. No "hope" that the people's wishes will be done.

The Republicans were for a lot of the things Obama is proposing before Obama proposed them. Now they are against them. I don't understand the flip flops.

I know Pelosi is a dipshit partisan hack and it is Obama's fault for not trying to rein her partisan BS in more. But there is a seperation of powers in the constitution for a reason. The President can't just dictate to Congress whatever the hell they want to. But, that being said some frikking leadership is needed to get the partisan hacks on both sides to tone it down.

Why do you keep painting Republicans with such a broad brush on this topic? There were only a handful of Republicans who changed their minds. Many Republicans voted in favor of this amendment and many democrats opposed it. This was probably the least partisan vote the Senate has taken since Obama was elected.

I haven't seen any evidence that Barack Obama is any less a partisan hack than any Republican or Nancy Pelosi.

If bipartisanship is the goal, why doesn't Obama propose a commission that is made up of an equal number of Republicans and democrats?

patteeu
02-03-2010, 08:07 AM
Can't you withdraw as a sponsor of a bill? Why didn't that happen?

Apparently it did happen. None of the Senators who voted nay appeared as sponsors of the final amendment. That was part of the confusion last night. It looked like all 7 of the Republican co-sponsors along with ranking member Gregg voted in favor of the amendment. I didn't realize that there had been 6 or 7 other co-sponsors at an earlier stage.

BigRedChief
02-03-2010, 08:29 AM
I haven't seen any evidence that Barack Obama is any less a partisan hack than any Republican or Nancy Pelosi.
The healthcare bill had tort reform and portability of insurance plans across state lines in it, not exactly Democratic ideas.

If bipartisanship is the goal, why doesn't Obama propose a commission that is made up of an equal number of Republicans and democrats?Do the Republicans have the same # and or % of representives in Congress as the Democrats?

Why do you keep painting Republicans with such a broad brush on this topic? There were only a handful of Republicans who changed their minds.So you are saying only a handful of Republicans in Congress that were for some idea or propsal before Obama was for it are now agaisnt it? Just a handful? or just this specific issue?

The Mad Crapper
02-03-2010, 08:42 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Czars_Dancing_200.gif

patteeu
02-03-2010, 08:59 AM
The healthcare bill had tort reform and portability of insurance plans across state lines in it, not exactly Democratic ideas.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I know you're not talking about Republican ideas.

So you are saying only a handful of Republicans in Congress that were for some idea or propsal before Obama was for it are now agaisnt it? Just a handful? or just this specific issue?

I'm saying on this specific issue there were only a small group of Senators who changed their mind. You keep describing them as "THE Republicans" as if all Republicans took the same path on the amendment. They didn't. Many supported it (17, I believe) and many had apparently opposed it from the beginning (16, I believe).

patteeu
02-03-2010, 09:01 AM
Do the Republicans have the same # and or % of representives in Congress as the Democrats?

What does that have to do with it? Are you trying to find a bipartisan solution to the country's budget problems or are you trying to retain a partisan advantage?

BigRedChief
02-03-2010, 09:08 AM
What does that have to do with it? Are you trying to find a bipartisan solution to the country's budget problems or are you trying to retain a partisan advantage?And where was this "for the good of the country" approach under Bush?

Chief Henry
02-03-2010, 09:24 AM
Just make the cuts already. Barry its time you stand up and lead, not pass the buck to a so called bipartisian commission. We don't have the time to wait for a phony commission. Remember how desperate it was to pass the stimulous bill one year ago ?

patteeu
02-03-2010, 09:59 AM
And where was this "for the good of the country" approach under Bush?

Always back to Bush. Bush was far more receptive to bipartisan approaches than Obama has been. Not only were democrats complicit in some of his most wasteful spending programs (prescription drugs), but they also controlled the Congress for the last 2 years of his term.

Most importantly though, Bush never had budget problems on the massive scale that Obama has created.

Norman Einstein
02-03-2010, 07:58 PM
Does anyone have a link to the bill in question?

Edit: Found it, the link for it here didn't work.

The bill was rejected, but there is no link to the bill for anyone here to read.

Was the bill changed from the original intent that made it unappetizing for people to sign?

Is there a possibility the bill failed because it went from a decent idea to a shitty one before it was voted on?

The 7 Republicans that the argument is about might have seen those changes from the original bill and disagreed.

I have not read the bill, nor have I seen any exerpts from it. Should it have been passed? The argument here seems to be the people that have R's that voted against it, is that all this is about or wanting to know what the bill is/was all about.