Here is the text of the legislation designed to repeal Obamacare. An amusing sidenote is that the bill is only 2 pages long whereas the Obamacare bill was over 2,000. The debate on the bill is scheduled to begin Friday January 7th and the final floor vote is slated for Wednesday January 12th. This should provide some of the best political television aired in the recent past.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
04 January 2011
09 November 2010
A Simple Way to Start Reforming the Way Congress Works
House Republican lawmakers, as well as many Republican congressional candidates, have made a variety of promises they intend to carry out should they be given control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Two documents can be considered capstones of these Republican promises. A Pledge to America appeared on the political scene during the election and then Rep. Cantor’s Delivering on Our Commitment coming shortly after the mid-term election was over. Both of these documents contain excellent proposals and add to the Republican rhetoric about changing the way Congress does business, making government more efficient and accountable, and doing the work the voters sent them there to do. However, one very simple, yet powerful, reform is missing.
This simple reform is nothing more than only allowing germane amendments to a piece of legislation or appropriations bill. This idea is neither novel nor rarely seen. Many states have this prohibition in place. In some states (Washington being an excellent example), if a piece of legislation or voter initiative addresses more than one issue it can be, and usually is, ruled unconstitutional by the court system. So if a legislator wants to create a carbon tax by amending a must pass bill addressing a serious yet unrelated issue it would not be allowed. By only allowing germane amendments, unpopular ideas and proposals that could not pass on their own accord are prevented from being concealed in popular or must pass pieces of legislation at the state level and would do wonders at the national level.
If the states see the necessity of a requirement for germane amendments, why doesn’t Congress? Currently any amendment can be added to any bill regardless of whether the amendment addresses the same issue or not. This tactic has been a way for unpopular or controversial items to be limped through the legislative process with little to no opposition or debate. By adding an amendment on an issue opposed by one party’s legislators into a bill relating to an issue those legislators have agreed to support, it creates a catch 22 situation. If they vote for the bill, they will be beaten up by their constituents for allowing such an issue to get past them. On the other hand, if they vote against the legislation because of the issue amended in, these legislators will be excoriated for not being willing to support the special interest or its funding they had agreed to support. For example, language repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is addressed in the military appropriations bill. What does repealing DADT have to do with military appropriations? Nothing. But the military appropriations bill is seen as must pass and an easy way to jam DADT with little resistance due to its inability to be passed as an individual piece of legislation. This creates a problem for Republicans and some moderate Democrats. If they don’t support the military appropriations bill then the merciless attacks of being unsupportive of the military will come from the press and others during the next election cycle. Should they vote for the bill with DADT repeal language securely embedded, they run the risk of angering sections of their base and could find themselves in serious trouble the next election cycle (as well as receiving phone calls from constituents and supporters expressing their frustration and anger over its passage in the meantime).
So what can Congress do about this backdoor tactic used to pass unpopular and controversial legislative items? Two options come to mind. First, create a House rule prohibiting the use of this tactic. This is the easiest and mostly a temporary remedy. Under such a rule no amendments would be considered at the committee or floor levels that don’t meet the criteria for a germane amendment. However, as we have seen over the last two years, rules can be suspended, easily changed, or outright ignored by the majority party when attempting to force through legislation that experiences strong opposition. A House rule would be a suitable stopgap until either legislation is passed prohibiting the practice or, ideally, getting a Constitutional Amendment ratified creating a permanent ban.
The second option would be to require some sort of constitutional authority statement on each piece of legislation. This option has previously garnered support among House Republican during the elections. Such a statement would include the article, section, and verbatim language from the Constitution stating where Congress derives the authority to enact the legislative mandate addressed in the specific piece of legislation. This statement should not be a multi-page dissertation, but a couple of paragraphs of discussion clearly outlining where Congress’ authority comes from and how the legislation fits into that authority. The problem with this option is that an amendment may vaguely follow the constitutional authority statement but not the letter or spirit of the original legislation. Thus it would be much more difficult to keep non-germane amendments, due to the potential for a myriad of grey areas for the amendment language to hide behind, from being amended into a piece of legislation than if the first option was in place.
Ideally, both of these options will be implemented to protect the American people from bad legislative mandates slipping through the system as an amendment rather than being dealt with on their own merits. Banning the practice of adding non-germane amendments to any and all legislation would go a long way in creating a more open and transparent Congressional process. After the last two years, the American people need as transparent a Congress as they can get. Hopefully the Republican leaders heading up the U.S. House of Representatives will catch on to this idea and implement it. It would go far in showing the American people how serious they are about what they have promised.
05 September 2010
Should the Elite of Republican Party Worry About Tea Party Victories in November as Much as the Democratic Elite? I Would Be.
This is just another example of voter frustration. One party doesn’t listen to what the voters want and then demean them when they get upset. And the other makes big claims and then, upon gaining power, loses its nerve when attacked by their opponents and their media lapdogs. The common view is that these new faces may actually have the fire to do what the voters want regardless of the uproar from the elitists and their allies demanding to go down a road that this country was never intended to be on in the first place. The liberal democratic leadership will be no longer in control and I suspect that many of the current Republican minority leadership will be in for a fight for control of the caucus and its agenda. The established elite of both parties are not well liked by voters and may find themselves looking in from the cold come 2011 when the tea party victors arrive in D.C. This is one of the most interesting election cycles since 1994 when the Republican Revolution and Contract for America propelled Republicans into control of the House of Representatives and cleared the way for more Republican victories to come. Let’s just hope that this one doesn’t crash and burn like the 1994 group did.
Republican New School Flexes Clout Ahead of November
Published September 05, 2010 | FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/05/republican-new-school-flexes-clout-ahead-november/
Democrats aren't the only incumbents in trouble this November. With a crop of feisty, fresh-faced conservatives making noise in the House and a wave of Tea Party-backed newcomers determined to join them, senior Republicans could have a mutiny on their hands.
The gap between the old and new schools of the GOP has become apparent as Election Day nears and polls show Republicans increasingly likely to pick up seats -- lots of seats.
Election guru Larry Sabato, at the University of Virginia, released new projections showing a possible 47-seat GOP pickup in the House. Gallup's latest generic poll showed Republicans with a 10-point lead over Democrats in the fall, the largest gap in 68 years.
The opportunity for a shakeup is ripe, but so is the opportunity for a makeover of the Republican Party itself.
"The Republican caucuses in the Senate and the House will change," Democratic strategist Kiki McLean said. "A dangerous place for Republicans to be is establishment leadership."
Establishment leadership likely were not thrilled to read about the contents this past week of the upcoming book being published by self-proclaimed "Young Guns" Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy -- three ambitious young members of Congress who've been heading up recruitment of other like-minded wunderkinds for the party.
Their book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," is due out Sept. 14 -- a blueprint for America in the same vein as the policy book then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released in 2008, only with the opposite prescriptions.
A summary in Politico.com based on an advance copy said House Republican Leader John Boehner is mentioned just three times in the book. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., is not mentioned at all, and other heavyweights like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are similarly disregarded.
A promotional video paid for by Cantor's political committee, set to inspiring music, looks like an introduction for the starting lineup of an Olympics dream team. The video bluntly depicts the authors as a different kind of dream team -- the future of the Republican Party.
"There is a better way and a new team is ready to bring America back," the narrator says.
Ryan, R-Wis., has attracted considerable attention in the Obama years as the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. He's considered the policy wonk of the lot and played a big role laying out the economic argument against the health care overhaul at the height of that debate. He's also put out his own economic recovery blueprint, which he calls "A Roadmap for America's Future."
Both he and McCarthy, R-Calif., were named in a recent list of the top five most powerful House Republicans compiled by GQ magazine. (The list intentionally excluded those in leadership positions.) The list also included Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the oversight committee Republican notorious for pursuing investigations into whatever bothers him -- and more importantly, bothers Democrats.
The three "Young Guns" lawmakers lead a program of the same name through the Republican National Congressional Committee that identifies and supports select conservative candidates.
Boehner and Cantor, the House GOP whip, denied friction between them in an interview with Fox News in July following a report that suggested Cantor posed an upstart challenge to Boehner's command.
"This is nothing but high school gossip kind of reporting," Cantor said at the time.
"We work very well together," Boehner said, acknowledging differences.
Cantor also has said publicly that he would support Boehner for speaker if Republicans seize the majority.
A GOP leadership aide said Boehner is not worried.
The Republican leader has stayed consistently visible and relevant in recent weeks, driving debate during the congressional recess and challenging the Obama administration.
When Vice President Biden delivered a speech touting the stimulus last month, Boehner used his address that day to call for President Obama to fire his economic team. Other Republicans have since echoed that demand.
And before Obama delivered his Oval Office address Tuesday marking the end of combat operations in Iraq, Boehner delivered an Iraq war address before the American Legion convention in Milwaukee. He called for the president to avoid "arbitrary deadlines" for withdrawal in Afghanistan, something other Republicans repeated after Obama delivered his speech.
But sitting lawmakers aren't the only ones who could be waiting in the wings.
Some of the most prominent voices in the Republican Party this season are on the campaign trail, several on the Senate side -- Republican Senate nominee Marco Rubio in Florida, Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul in Kentucky and Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.
Chip Saltsman, former campaign manager for 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, cited all three conservatives in describing the new face of the GOP.
"We're seeing a different type of candidate," he said, noting that the resounding theme of their campaigns is fiscal conservatism, government restraint and job creation. "The country's just about had enough and I think that's why you're going to see a new face of Republican politics out there, and it's one of fiscal control."
He said candidates like Paul and Rubio would "lead that charge" in November.
Dozens of new Republicans could enter on the House side. McLean said the changing makeup could pose a serious problem for sitting Republican leaders.
"The most endangered incumbent this year is really John Boehner, the House Republican leaders, because I think as you see a lot more of the Tea Party candidates come into their caucus, when they go to their leadership elections, they're not going to stand with establishment leadership," she said.
24 May 2010
The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending (from the Washington Examiner)
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
May 23, 2010
 |
Their defeats are an indication that spending is not popular this year.
20 May 2010
House Republican Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Opposing the VAT Tax Option
The last thing America needs right now is more economic recovery killing taxation. 154 Republicans signed the letter sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform opposing the VAT Tax. Kudos to these Republican members of the House who signed onto this letter.
"In a depressed economy, the number one priority of government should be to stimulate job growth. With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Americans cannot afford the burden of a new job killing tax. But this is exactly what a VAT will do. A VAT will increase the cost of goods and services for all Americans, including the lower and middle classes. It will tax our manufacturers, sending even more jobs overseas. And, it will decrease consumption, which will deepen the recession and suppress entrepreneurialism. This is exactly what has happened in Europe where increased government spending and taxation has led to consistently high unemployment and suppressed economic activity."
“Disappointingly, some in Washington still believe that we must grow our government and the tax base to fix the debt crisis. Recently the President’s own advisors have suggested that a VAT could be good for America. Not even a 19 percent VAT was able to save Greece from a full-blown crisis. We should not expect different results in America.”
http://www.house.gov/pitts/documents/PittsLettertoDebtCommission.pdf
24 April 2010
Running on the Promise to Repeal Obamacare is Short Sighted and Dangerous Strategy for Republican Candidates
Before I start getting hate mail/comments or being told I am not a true conservative, hear me out. I didn’t support Obamacare and would like to see it repealed as much as anyone. However, it isn’t going to happen anytime soon for two BIG reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
