GOP Plays Games with Disaster Relief

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 2:03 PM GMT
    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else.
    “If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental,”
    Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/may/23/cantor-learns-delays-lesson-disaster-spending/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 2:30 PM GMT
    How is that playing games? He is not suggesting not providing the support, just discussing how it must be paid. Do you have the capability to write an honest thread title? Try it. It's not too hard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 2:40 PM GMT
    This is exactly playing games with disaster relief.

    I assumed congressional republicans were smart enough to budget for disasters. But knowing republicans, probably not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 4:03 PM GMT
    If you want an example of playing games, look at Harry Reid's refusal to have the Senate produce a budget.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 4:11 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidThis is exactly playing games with disaster relief.

    I assumed congressional republicans were smart enough to budget for disasters. But knowing republicans, probably not.


    QFT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIf you want an example of playing games, look at Harry Reid's refusal to have the Senate produce a budget.

    Perhaps because of this: US Constitution, Article I, Section 7:

    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    The Constitution does not address a budget process (in fact the word does not even appear there), but because of Section 7, the initiative for one has always been with the House. Indeed, only in more recent times has the President proposed his own budget plan, but it is merely a proposal and nothing more; it is not a Bill. House Members (usually from his own Party) must agree to submit to the House such parts of it as they may support, in the form of an actual House Bill.

    As for the Senate, it could merely approve the House budget, with any amendments as the Constitution stipulates. Or it could propose its own budget for negotiating purposes with the House. If the House budget fails to pass in the Senate, it is customary, though not Constitutionally required, for the Senate, in this case controlled by a different Party than the House, to offer its own budget proposal, assuming it had not already done so.

    But the House must still pass the revised budget, whoever writes it -- the Senate does NOT "produce" a budget, only the House can. That's the step Harry Reid is waiting for before offering an alternative proposal. From the LA Times, May 20, 2011:

    Democrats announced Thursday that they would decline to pursue a budget, preferring to await a resolution to various bipartisan budget efforts underway. Those include the White House talks -- led by Vice President Joe Biden -- with congressional leaders to strike an accord in exchange for raising the nation's debt limit.

    Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota said Democrats had decided to "defer" presenting their budget as negotiations continued. Conrad and Reid have said the budget could be used as the legislative vehicle for that effort.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidIf you want an example of playing games, look at Harry Reid's refusal to have the Senate produce a budget.

    Perhaps because of this: US Constitution, Article I, Section 7:

    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    The Constitution does not address a budget process (in fact the word does not even appear there), but because of Section 7, the initiative for one has always been with the House. Indeed, only in more recent times has the President proposed his own budget plan, but it is merely a proposal and nothing more; it is not a Bill. House Members (usually from his own Party) must agree to submit to the House such parts of it as they may support, in the form of an actual House Bill.

    As for the Senate, it could merely approve the House budget, with any amendments as the Constitution stipulates. Or it could propose its own budget for negotiating purposes with the House. If the House budget fails to pass in the Senate, it is customary, though not Constitutionally required, for the Senate, in this case controlled by a different Party than the House, to offer its own budget proposal, assuming it had not already done so.

    But the House must still pass the revised budget, whoever writes it -- the Senate does NOT "produce" a budget, only the House can. That's the step Harry Reid is waiting for before offering an alternative proposal. From the LA Times, May 20, 2011:

    Democrats announced Thursday that they would decline to pursue a budget, preferring to await a resolution to various bipartisan budget efforts underway. Those include the White House talks -- led by Vice President Joe Biden -- with congressional leaders to strike an accord in exchange for raising the nation's debt limit.

    Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota said Democrats had decided to "defer" presenting their budget as negotiations continued. Conrad and Reid have said the budget could be used as the legislative vehicle for that effort.


    Yes, you are correct. I should have used the term "propose" a budget instead of "produce" a budget. Reid's deferral is playing political games, as they prefer to do nothing but snipe at what Ryan came up with instead of taking any initiative themselves. Their excuses are just excuses.