United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[WiseGirl]

"Roger J. Stone Jr., a Republican strategist who has advised Mr. Trump for decades, said the president needed to “take a scalp” in order to force cooperation from Republican elites who have resisted his agenda. Mr. Stone urged Mr. Trump to make an example of one or more Republicans, like Mr. Flake, who have refused to give full support to his administration."

OR may some of the Republican elite recognize it is time to start a third party......

[sawasdee]

29 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

the president needed to “take a scalp” in order to force cooperation from Republican elites who have resisted his agenda.

Or maybe his agenda is divisive, politically indefensible and just plain wrong? And that's why Repugs are not falling into line?

They will accept almost anything in order to get the sacred tax cuts  - so he's got to be doing something very wrong to have upset them!

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, sawasdee said:

Or maybe his agenda is divisive, politically indefensible and just plain wrong? And that's why Repugs are not falling into line?

They will accept almost anything in order to get the sacred tax cuts  - so he's got to be doing something very wrong to have upset them!

He's insulting them and that's not something they're accustomed to hearing from a president in their own party. He's not loyal and they don't like that. Now they have to worry about retaining the majority with split voter loyalty in their own party.

How long will Choi last? I think she's about to tell Trump to stuff it and head off for a long vacation.

[GreyhoundFan]

"A man at the Trump rally said, ‘McCain needs to die!’ Here’s how the senator’s daughter responded."

Spoiler

Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, slammed a Trump supporter who reportedly called for her father’s death.

A picture shared by journalist David Catanese showed a man wearing a Make America Great Again hat outside a Trump rally in Phoenix. “This Trump supporter is shouting at protestors: ‘McCain needs to die now!'” Catanese tweeted Tuesday evening, shortly before President Trump delivered a campaign-style speech in front of supporters in the convention center in downtown Phoenix.

Meghan McCain retweeted Catanese a few hours later:

... < Meghan's tweet >

Without naming names, Trump spent a few seconds of his 75-minute speech criticizing Arizona’s two GOP senators, McCain and Sen. Jeff Flake, who’s running for a second term.

“One vote away! I will not mention any names,” he said, as he described his choice to not name names “very presidential.”

McCain cast the deciding vote that led to the Senate’s rejection of the “skinny repeal” bill, a watered-down version of a plan to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. McCain, who had been diagnosed with brain cancer, was one of three Republican senators who voted against the bill.

The vote began in the early morning hours of July 28. By then, McCain had been keeping his colleagues and the press corps in suspense for a little more than two hours about how he would vote, The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe wrote. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cast their “no” votes first. Just before 1:30 a.m., McCain approached the Senate clerk and gave a thumbs down.

The bill failed 49-51.

In Phoenix, Trump repeated his promise to “get rid of Obamacare.”

“I will never stop. One vote!” he said, again hinting at McCain. “I will never stop. We’re gonna get rid of Obamacare.”

Trump then criticized Flake, also without naming him.

“And nobody wants me to talk about your other senator, who’s weak on borders, weak on crime, so I won’t talk about him,” he said of Flake. “Nobody wants me to talk about him. Nobody knows who the hell he is. And now, see, I haven’t mentioned any names. So now, everybody’s happy.”

Flake’s seat is being challenged in the Republican primary by Kelli Ward, a former Arizona state senator who also ran against McCain last year. Ward stirred controversy when she said that McCain should “step away as quickly as possible” during a radio interview last month, just days after the 80-year-old senator was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer.

McCain and Trump have traded verbal jabs in the past.

McCain, a vocal critic of the president, called the administration’s decision to halt a CIA training program for moderate Syrian rebels “irresponsible” and “short-sighted.” He also criticized Trump’s tweet last month about banning transgender people in the military, saying that major policy announcements should not be made on Twitter.

In February, McCain defended the free press after Trump called the news media “the enemy of the American people.” Such talk, McCain said on NBC News, was “how dictators get started.”

In 2015, Trump attacked McCain’s military record, saying he is not a war hero.

“He was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said, criticizing McCain for being captured in Vietnam. “I like people who weren’t captured.”

A few days before McCain cast the deciding vote on the health-care bill last month, Trump praised the senator for returning to Washington despite having been diagnosed with cancer. Republicans needed his vote, Trump said.

“Brave – American hero! Thank you John,” Trump tweeted.

After McCain voted “no,” Trump tweeted that those who rejected the bill “let the American people down.”

Just another BT out there, spreading the love. (end sarcasm)

[GrumpyGran]

15 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"A man at the Trump rally said, ‘McCain needs to die!’ Here’s how the senator’s daughter responded."

  Hide contents

Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, slammed a Trump supporter who reportedly called for her father’s death.

A picture shared by journalist David Catanese showed a man wearing a Make America Great Again hat outside a Trump rally in Phoenix. “This Trump supporter is shouting at protestors: ‘McCain needs to die now!'” Catanese tweeted Tuesday evening, shortly before President Trump delivered a campaign-style speech in front of supporters in the convention center in downtown Phoenix.

Meghan McCain retweeted Catanese a few hours later:

... < Meghan's tweet >

Without naming names, Trump spent a few seconds of his 75-minute speech criticizing Arizona’s two GOP senators, McCain and Sen. Jeff Flake, who’s running for a second term.

“One vote away! I will not mention any names,” he said, as he described his choice to not name names “very presidential.”

McCain cast the deciding vote that led to the Senate’s rejection of the “skinny repeal” bill, a watered-down version of a plan to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. McCain, who had been diagnosed with brain cancer, was one of three Republican senators who voted against the bill.

The vote began in the early morning hours of July 28. By then, McCain had been keeping his colleagues and the press corps in suspense for a little more than two hours about how he would vote, The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe wrote. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cast their “no” votes first. Just before 1:30 a.m., McCain approached the Senate clerk and gave a thumbs down.

The bill failed 49-51.

In Phoenix, Trump repeated his promise to “get rid of Obamacare.”

“I will never stop. One vote!” he said, again hinting at McCain. “I will never stop. We’re gonna get rid of Obamacare.”

Trump then criticized Flake, also without naming him.

“And nobody wants me to talk about your other senator, who’s weak on borders, weak on crime, so I won’t talk about him,” he said of Flake. “Nobody wants me to talk about him. Nobody knows who the hell he is. And now, see, I haven’t mentioned any names. So now, everybody’s happy.”

Flake’s seat is being challenged in the Republican primary by Kelli Ward, a former Arizona state senator who also ran against McCain last year. Ward stirred controversy when she said that McCain should “step away as quickly as possible” during a radio interview last month, just days after the 80-year-old senator was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer.

McCain and Trump have traded verbal jabs in the past.

McCain, a vocal critic of the president, called the administration’s decision to halt a CIA training program for moderate Syrian rebels “irresponsible” and “short-sighted.” He also criticized Trump’s tweet last month about banning transgender people in the military, saying that major policy announcements should not be made on Twitter.

In February, McCain defended the free press after Trump called the news media “the enemy of the American people.” Such talk, McCain said on NBC News, was “how dictators get started.”

In 2015, Trump attacked McCain’s military record, saying he is not a war hero.

“He was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said, criticizing McCain for being captured in Vietnam. “I like people who weren’t captured.”

A few days before McCain cast the deciding vote on the health-care bill last month, Trump praised the senator for returning to Washington despite having been diagnosed with cancer. Republicans needed his vote, Trump said.

“Brave – American hero! Thank you John,” Trump tweeted.

After McCain voted “no,” Trump tweeted that those who rejected the bill “let the American people down.”

Just another BT out there, spreading the love. (end sarcasm)

How long will these spineless Representatives and Senators continue to let this scam artist fling insults at them and encourage his followers to scream hatred? I have lots of problems with McCain but this behavior is a direct result of our lunatic president encouraging his lap dogs to say whatever they want. He is validating their worst thoughts and actions.

I could never serve in Congress because  but I can't image being married to a man who would keep putting up with this and not call this bully out. Where is their outrage? It seems now that the worse he gets, the more they just act like he's a child having a tantrum. Are they really still worried about alienating his contemptible base?

[Cartmann99]

That tweet the Trump supporter sent about hoping for John McCain's death was beyond the pale, and Meghan has every right to rip him a new one. That said, I don't have a whole lot of respect or sympathy for Meghan, as many people tried to warn her and her friends of what was in store, and we were mocked and derided.

Back in December, she was enjoying the pain of people in Hollywood who were upset by Trump's win:

I guess it's different when the shoe is on the other foot, huh Meghan?

[candygirl200413]

Agreed. Defend your father but herself is just as trash as an individual. Especially supporting someone who said your dad wasn't a real war hero!!

[GrumpyGran]

20 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

Agreed. Defend your father but herself is just as trash as an individual. Especially supporting someone who said your dad wasn't a real war hero!!

It does appear that Fox Flu has taken over. It's an illness that affects people who start working at Fox News. The symptoms are uncontrollable lying, inflated ego and an inability to maintain focus. In women it also presents as a undeniable need to wear dresses with no sleeves and short skirts!

[GreyhoundFan]

"House Republican seeks to quash D.C. law banning reproductive discrimination"

Spoiler

The District’s landmark 2014 law that says employers cannot discriminate against workers based on their reproductive health decisions is being targeted for the third straight year by a House Republican.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) late Thursday filed an amendment to a House appropriations bill to block the District from using funds to carry out the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act.

That law broadened the definition of discrimination in the District to include an employee’s reproductive health decisions. Under the law, employers cannot discriminate against employees who seek contraception or family planning services. Employers also cannot act against an employee when they know she has used medical treatments to initiate or terminate a pregnancy.

Palmer’s amendment must pass the House and Senate and be signed by President Trump before it can take effect.

The measure is one of several aiming to quash city laws, including an assisted-suicide measure, known as Death with Dignity, which Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) signed into law in December 2016.

Republican lawmakers also previously inserted amendments into the spending bill to prevent the city from using money without federal permission, from using local tax dollars to subsidize abortion for low-income women, and from spending money to regulate the sale of marijuana.

“Mayor Bower continues to oppose any anti-D.C. riders,” said Tomás Talamante, who oversees congressional appropriations in the D.C. office of federal and regional affairs. “These riders do nothing to help us improve our neighborhoods or strengthen our schools.”

Instead of seeking “to overturn will of D.C. voters,” Congress should focus on more pressing issues, such as infrastructure and health care, he said.

While the GOP-controlled House has often exerted its congressional authority over the District in recent years, city officials rely on more moderate lawmakers in the Senate to refrain from meddling in District affairs.

A spokeswoman for Palmer referred questions about the amendment to a floor speech he made last year on the issue.

“Without my amendment some employers in the District of Columbia would not only be prohibited from exercising their religion but would be forced to embrace the beliefs of the 13 members of the D.C. Council,” he said at the time.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s nonvoting representative, said she will oppose Palmer’s amendment and four others in the appropriations bill.

“Ignoring the bedrock Republican principle of local control of local affairs, Representative Palmer is doing the bidding of far-right interest groups to try to block a local D.C. anti-discrimination law, while ignoring work that needs to be done for his own constituents,” Norton said in a statement.

The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act bans employers from taking action against workers based on their decision to use birth control or seek an abortion.

“No employer has the right to know, much less interfere, with the most private of health decisions of their employees,” Norton said.

Some conservatives and Catholic groups have interpreted the city law to mean that employers in the District, including churches and antiabortion groups such as March for Life, could be forced to provide coverage for contraception and abortions.

The D.C. Council passed a temporary fix to make it clear that religious organizations would not be responsible for such medical care.

But in 2015, the House voted along party lines to strike down the law. The Senate did not take up the measure.

The following year, Palmer sought to block funding for its implementation. That measure bill passed the House but again failed to reach the Senate floor.

Democrats have compared efforts to gut the nondiscrimination law to the 2014 decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which allows some companies to refrain from offering contraception through employee health plans.

This annoys me. Dude isn't a resident in DC, he should stay out of their affairs.

[fraurosena]

So that thing about Benghazi...

Trey Gowdy Finally Admits The Truth

Quote

In an interview with Bill Hemmer on Fox 'News', Trey Gowdy finally admitted the truth about Benghazi and his bogus committee. This comes on the heels of the Kangaroo Court's Benghazi Committee's lead investigator quitting and admitting that everything that could be done, was done.

One of the primary conspiracy theories swirling around the Benghazi Inquisition has been the notion of a "stand down order," and whether one was issued. The reason they've made this a central point in their witchhunt is to say that the military was ordered to stand down instead of responding.

You might remember this, from General Jerry Boykin in 2013, when he was conspiring with other right-wing movers and shakers to get the Benghazi committee.

I know Allen has been very concerned as I have been as to why there was no military response. Noone's ever given a satisfactory answer. And as I said to the speaker last night, there's an American value, an American ethos that was violated and it is very important not only to the families but it is very important to every soldier, sailor and Marine or diplomat that's put in harm's way in the future.

...

So I think we'll see some things that will come out today that will begin to whittle awayat our big question of why no military response.

Gowdy told Hemmer, "Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, they couldn't. I don't think there's any question about that."

Say WHAT? This was supposedly the foundation of the whole "stand-down order" myth! That the military could have gotten there in time to save the day had the evil Secretary Clinton and President Obama called them up into action instead of ordering them to stand down.

Gowdy is now spinning away from that by asking, "Why could you not? Why were you not positioned to do it?"

Nice goalpost move, there, bro, but you just shattered one of the reasons your Inquisition exists. Good going, pal.

 

[candygirl200413]

It's like fox news just only spreads conspiracy theories or something!

[GrumpyGran]

21 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"House Republican seeks to quash D.C. law banning reproductive discrimination"

  Hide contents

The District’s landmark 2014 law that says employers cannot discriminate against workers based on their reproductive health decisions is being targeted for the third straight year by a House Republican.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) late Thursday filed an amendment to a House appropriations bill to block the District from using funds to carry out the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act.

That law broadened the definition of discrimination in the District to include an employee’s reproductive health decisions. Under the law, employers cannot discriminate against employees who seek contraception or family planning services. Employers also cannot act against an employee when they know she has used medical treatments to initiate or terminate a pregnancy.

Palmer’s amendment must pass the House and Senate and be signed by President Trump before it can take effect.

The measure is one of several aiming to quash city laws, including an assisted-suicide measure, known as Death with Dignity, which Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) signed into law in December 2016.

Republican lawmakers also previously inserted amendments into the spending bill to prevent the city from using money without federal permission, from using local tax dollars to subsidize abortion for low-income women, and from spending money to regulate the sale of marijuana.

“Mayor Bower continues to oppose any anti-D.C. riders,” said Tomás Talamante, who oversees congressional appropriations in the D.C. office of federal and regional affairs. “These riders do nothing to help us improve our neighborhoods or strengthen our schools.”

Instead of seeking “to overturn will of D.C. voters,” Congress should focus on more pressing issues, such as infrastructure and health care, he said.

While the GOP-controlled House has often exerted its congressional authority over the District in recent years, city officials rely on more moderate lawmakers in the Senate to refrain from meddling in District affairs.

A spokeswoman for Palmer referred questions about the amendment to a floor speech he made last year on the issue.

“Without my amendment some employers in the District of Columbia would not only be prohibited from exercising their religion but would be forced to embrace the beliefs of the 13 members of the D.C. Council,” he said at the time.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s nonvoting representative, said she will oppose Palmer’s amendment and four others in the appropriations bill.

“Ignoring the bedrock Republican principle of local control of local affairs, Representative Palmer is doing the bidding of far-right interest groups to try to block a local D.C. anti-discrimination law, while ignoring work that needs to be done for his own constituents,” Norton said in a statement.

The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act bans employers from taking action against workers based on their decision to use birth control or seek an abortion.

“No employer has the right to know, much less interfere, with the most private of health decisions of their employees,” Norton said.

Some conservatives and Catholic groups have interpreted the city law to mean that employers in the District, including churches and antiabortion groups such as March for Life, could be forced to provide coverage for contraception and abortions.

The D.C. Council passed a temporary fix to make it clear that religious organizations would not be responsible for such medical care.

But in 2015, the House voted along party lines to strike down the law. The Senate did not take up the measure.

The following year, Palmer sought to block funding for its implementation. That measure bill passed the House but again failed to reach the Senate floor.

Democrats have compared efforts to gut the nondiscrimination law to the 2014 decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which allows some companies to refrain from offering contraception through employee health plans.

This annoys me. Dude isn't a resident in DC, he should stay out of their affairs.

So if Palmer is successful does that mean I, as an employer in the District(obviously I'm not) can require my employees to use birth control? And prove to me that they do? If one of my female employees gets pregnant can I tell her to either get an abortion or quit? What if I don't want my employees distracted by children? It affects productivity and I have a right to make money. My right to a sizable profit for myself is more important than their privacy, right?

These rabid oppressive religious nuts are too stupid to realize that some of these laws are actually protecting them too.

[GreyhoundFan]

Empty indeed: "Republicans’ empty words against Trump"

Spoiler

The relationship between President Trump and Republicans in Congress is rapidly deteriorating. At least, that is the clear impression one gets from a spate of recent headlines, such as “Trump distances himself from GOP lawmakers to avoid blame if agenda stalls,” “Deepening GOP split, Trump attacks Republican senators” and “Trump sticks it to GOP.” The problem, as those headlines indicate, is that the feud is largely one-sided.

Almost every day, Trump demonstrates that he is utterly unfit for office. In the past few days alone, as a catastrophic hurricane devastated the fourth-largest city in the country, Trump pardoned former Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff Joe Arpaio — who defied a court order to stop illegally profiling Latinos and committed grotesque abuses of power for years — and tweeted nonsense about Mexico paying for “the wall” on the southern border. And yet, despite the president’s intensifying attacks on members of his own party, Republican leaders still have not shown the spine necessary to confront him in any meaningful way. Even the relatively few conservative lawmakers who have spoken out forcefully against Trump, particularly in response to his abominable reaction to the white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Va., have failed to back up their words with concrete actions.

Ask yourself this: Who in the Republican Party is even attempting to hold him accountable?

Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) might be the closest Trump comes to having a true Republican antagonist in Washington. In his new book, Flake correctly argues that his party “all but ensured the rise of Donald Trump” and accuses his co-partisans of being in denial. In return, Trump has praised Flake’s right-wing primary challenger and slammed his positions on crime and border security. Yet while Flake’s recriminations may help him sell books and win fans in the establishment media, they will do nothing to rein in a presidency that he portrays as a danger to democracy. Meanwhile, Flake has voted in line with Trump’s position roughly 94 percent of the time, and he responded to Trump’s personal attacks last week by talking up his desire to “work with the president.”

Like Flake, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has cultivated a reputation for being a principled Trump opponent. He has denounced Trump’s tweets and admonished him for “trying to weaponize distrust” of the press. But aside from his lofty words — he is also promoting a book — Sasse has done virtually nothing to distinguish himself from any other partisan loyalist. Like Flake, he has consistently supported Trump’s agenda and voted to confirm extreme and unqualified nominees, such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. As Ben Mathis-Lilley recently wrote, “If Nebraskans had elected a cravenly partisan alt-right bozo as their senator in 2014 instead of a genial Ph.D., American public life would be little different today.”

After Flake and Sasse, there is a small cadre of conservatives who seem to relish the attention they receive for occasionally criticizing Trump, even as they heap praise upon him when it serves their interests, as if offering positive reinforcement to a poorly behaved pet. For example, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) blasted Trump for “dividing Americans” following the terror in Charlottesville. Just a few days later, however, he celebrated Trump’s ill-advised decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by applauding him for “showing the will to stand up to Radical Islam . . . unlike President Obama.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sharply criticized the pardon of Arpaio, but he, too, enthusiastically praised Trump for his “new strategy” in Afghanistan.

To be fair, Trump is a more conventional Republican than many Republicans would care to admit, so their overwhelming support for his policies of deregulation, draconian budget cuts and tax cuts for the rich is expected. But even so, there are plenty of ways that congressional Republicans could stand up to the president if they wanted to. They could convene hearings on the rise of white nationalism or sign onto the Democratic resolution censuring Trump for equating neo-Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan with anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville. They could investigate Trump’s conflicts of interest or empower the Office of Government Ethics to conduct stricter oversight of the executive branch. They could force Trump to finally release his tax returns. “The real question is not whether Republicans can do something about Trump,” historian Julian Zelizer says, “but whether they have the will or the courage to do so.” At this point, they clearly do not.

Like everything else involving Trump, the rift between him and Republicans in Congress is personal: They don’t like each other. But while their personal relationships may be souring, they are still politically bound together. As long as Republicans fail to show the moral or political courage to hold Trump accountable, the whole party is complicit.

 

[JMarie]

Do they have ANY sensitivity??

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-gop-eyeing-dollar1b-disaster-funds-cut-to-finance-wall/ar-AAqZ1PK?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Quote

President Donald Trump is promising billions to help Texas rebuild from Harvey-caused epic flooding, but his Republican allies in the House are looking at cutting almost $1 billion from disaster accounts to help finance the president's border wall.

The pending reduction to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief account is part of a massive spending bill that the House is scheduled to consider next week when lawmakers return from their August recess. The $876 million cut, which is included in the 1,305-page measure's homeland security section, pays for roughly half the cost of Trump's down payment on the U.S.-Mexico border wall that the president repeatedly promised Mexico would finance.

It seems sure that GOP leaders will move to reverse the disaster aid cut next week as floodwaters cover Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, and tens of thousands of Texans have sought refuge in shelters. There's only $2.3 billion remaining in federal disaster coffer.

The disaster relief cut to finance the wall was proposed well before Harvey and the politically bad optics are sure to lead lawmakers to do an about face, though that would create a money crunch in homeland security accounts.

Harvey aid is a fresh addition to an agenda already packed with must-do tasks and multiple legislative deadlines: Passing a stopgap spending bill to avert a government shutdown; increasing the government's borrowing authority to prevent a market-quaking default on U.S. obligations; and paving the way for a GOP rewrite of the U.S. tax code.

Trump is slated to meet with congressional leaders next Wednesday. The meeting follows a recess that has seen Trump lambast several top Republicans, especially Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., after the collapse of the GOP health care bill in his chamber. That has wounded the president's relationship with his own party, and the coming weeks should offer a test of how much clout he has with fellow Republicans.

McConnell is scheduled to attend next Wednesday morning's White House meeting, according to congressional aides. Also going are House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the aides said. They spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a meeting that hadn't yet been announced.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, is pressing for an emergency infusion of disaster aid pending estimates of longer-term rebuilding costs.

Despite Trump's promise at a rally in Phoenix last week to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border even "if we have to close down our government," congressional Republicans are optimistic of averting a politically damaging shutdown after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

For one thing, most Republicans, including Trump, want to move on to a sweeping revamp of the tax code, and a shutdown debacle would only make tax legislation more difficult. A tax overhaul, cutting rates for individuals and businesses while erasing numerous tax breaks and loopholes, is difficult enough as it stands.

Like the failed push to repeal former President Barack Obama's health care law, the tax effort is likely to encounter strong Democratic opposition and divisions among Republicans, leaving its fate uncertain.

The massive, ongoing flooding caused by Harvey means that officials still don't know how much aid the metropolis will need to recover, but it's expected to be many billions of dollars. A possible outcome is one or even two infusions of immediate aid next month, with a longer-term recovery package coming by year's end.

2.3 billion dollars available, yet many billion dollars expected to be needed.

Looks like that wall won't get financed, at least not yet.

[onekidanddone]

46 minutes ago, JMarie said:

2.3 billion dollars available, yet many billion dollars expected to be needed.

Looks like that wall won't get financed, at least not yet.

Canada and Mexico should team up and threaten to build walls to keep Trump out.  Then force him to pay for them himself.

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes!

[candygirl200413]

Even though this is Pence related, this video is from when he was in congress. The bible verse he uses is where my sorority's motto originates from so that already pissed me off first. Then he talks about how Katrina sucks but eh it's fine right?!

fuck this POS. And every rep who voted against any type of aid.

[GreyhoundFan]

Big news from California's junior senator:

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo published an opinion piece by Sen McCain: "John McCain: It’s time Congress returns to regular order'

Spoiler

Americans recoiled from the repugnant spectacle of white supremacists marching in Charlottesville to promote their un-American “blood and soil” ideology. There is nothing in their hate-driven racism that can match the strength of a nation conceived in liberty and comprising 323 million souls of different origins and opinions who are equal under the law.

Most of us share Heather Heyer’s values, not the depravity of the man who took her life. We are the country that led the free world to victory over fascism and dispatched communism to the ash heap of history. We are the superpower that organized not an empire, but an international order of free, independent nations that has liberated more people from poverty and tyranny than anyone thought possible in the age of colonies and autocracies.

Our shared values define us more than our differences. And acknowledging those shared values can see us through our challenges today if we have the wisdom to trust in them again.

Congress will return from recess next week facing continued gridlock as we lurch from one self-created crisis to another. We are proving inadequate not only to our most difficult problems but also to routine duties. Our national political campaigns never stop. We seem convinced that majorities exist to impose their will with few concessions and that minorities exist to prevent the party in power from doing anything important.

That’s not how we were meant to govern. Our entire system of government — with its checks and balances, its bicameral Congress, its protections of the rights of the minority — was designed for compromise. It seldom works smoothly or speedily. It was never expected to.

It requires pragmatic problem-solving from even the most passionate partisans. It relies on compromise between opposing sides to protect the interests we share. We can fight like hell for our ideas to prevail. But we have to respect each other or at least respect the fact that we need each other.

That has never been truer than today, when Congress must govern with a president who has no experience of public office, is often poorly informed and can be impulsive in his speech and conduct.

We must respect his authority and constitutional responsibilities. We must, where we can, cooperate with him. But we are not his subordinates. We don’t answer to him. We answer to the American people. We must be diligent in discharging our responsibility to serve as a check on his power. And we should value our identity as members of Congress more than our partisan affiliation.

I argued during the health-care debate for a return to regular order, letting committees of jurisdiction do the principal work of crafting legislation and letting the full Senate debate and amend their efforts.

We won’t settle all our differences that way, but such an approach is more likely to make progress on the central problems confronting our constituents. We might not like the compromises regular order requires, but we can and must live with them if we are to find real and lasting solutions. And all of us in Congress have the duty, in this sharply polarized atmosphere, to defend the necessity of compromise before the American public.

Let’s try that approach on a budget that realistically meets the nation’s critical needs. We all know spending levels for defense and other urgent priorities have been woefully inadequate for years. But we haven’t found the will to work together to adjust them. The appropriators can’t complete their spending bills, and we’re stuck with threats of a government shutdown and continuing resolutions that underfund national security. A compromise that raises spending caps for both sides’ priorities is better than the abject failure that has been our achievement to date.

Let’s also try that approach on immigration. The president has promised greater border security. We can agree to that. A literal wall might not be the most effective means to that end, but we can provide the resources necessary to secure the border with smart and affordable measures. Let’s make it part of a comprehensive bill that members of both parties can get behind — one that values our security as well as the humanity of immigrants and their contributions to our economy and culture.

Let’s try it on tax reform and infrastructure improvement and all the other urgent priorities confronting us. These are all opportunities to show that ordinary, decent, free people can govern competently, respectfully and humbly, and to prove the value of the United States Congress to the great nation we serve.

Lovely words, but I can't see the teabaggers buying in on it.

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The WaPo published an opinion piece by Sen McCain: "John McCain: It’s time Congress returns to regular order'

  Hide contents

Americans recoiled from the repugnant spectacle of white supremacists marching in Charlottesville to promote their un-American “blood and soil” ideology. There is nothing in their hate-driven racism that can match the strength of a nation conceived in liberty and comprising 323 million souls of different origins and opinions who are equal under the law.

Most of us share Heather Heyer’s values, not the depravity of the man who took her life. We are the country that led the free world to victory over fascism and dispatched communism to the ash heap of history. We are the superpower that organized not an empire, but an international order of free, independent nations that has liberated more people from poverty and tyranny than anyone thought possible in the age of colonies and autocracies.

Our shared values define us more than our differences. And acknowledging those shared values can see us through our challenges today if we have the wisdom to trust in them again.

Congress will return from recess next week facing continued gridlock as we lurch from one self-created crisis to another. We are proving inadequate not only to our most difficult problems but also to routine duties. Our national political campaigns never stop. We seem convinced that majorities exist to impose their will with few concessions and that minorities exist to prevent the party in power from doing anything important.

That’s not how we were meant to govern. Our entire system of government — with its checks and balances, its bicameral Congress, its protections of the rights of the minority — was designed for compromise. It seldom works smoothly or speedily. It was never expected to.

It requires pragmatic problem-solving from even the most passionate partisans. It relies on compromise between opposing sides to protect the interests we share. We can fight like hell for our ideas to prevail. But we have to respect each other or at least respect the fact that we need each other.

That has never been truer than today, when Congress must govern with a president who has no experience of public office, is often poorly informed and can be impulsive in his speech and conduct.

We must respect his authority and constitutional responsibilities. We must, where we can, cooperate with him. But we are not his subordinates. We don’t answer to him. We answer to the American people. We must be diligent in discharging our responsibility to serve as a check on his power. And we should value our identity as members of Congress more than our partisan affiliation.

I argued during the health-care debate for a return to regular order, letting committees of jurisdiction do the principal work of crafting legislation and letting the full Senate debate and amend their efforts.

We won’t settle all our differences that way, but such an approach is more likely to make progress on the central problems confronting our constituents. We might not like the compromises regular order requires, but we can and must live with them if we are to find real and lasting solutions. And all of us in Congress have the duty, in this sharply polarized atmosphere, to defend the necessity of compromise before the American public.

Let’s try that approach on a budget that realistically meets the nation’s critical needs. We all know spending levels for defense and other urgent priorities have been woefully inadequate for years. But we haven’t found the will to work together to adjust them. The appropriators can’t complete their spending bills, and we’re stuck with threats of a government shutdown and continuing resolutions that underfund national security. A compromise that raises spending caps for both sides’ priorities is better than the abject failure that has been our achievement to date.

Let’s also try that approach on immigration. The president has promised greater border security. We can agree to that. A literal wall might not be the most effective means to that end, but we can provide the resources necessary to secure the border with smart and affordable measures. Let’s make it part of a comprehensive bill that members of both parties can get behind — one that values our security as well as the humanity of immigrants and their contributions to our economy and culture.

Let’s try it on tax reform and infrastructure improvement and all the other urgent priorities confronting us. These are all opportunities to show that ordinary, decent, free people can govern competently, respectfully and humbly, and to prove the value of the United States Congress to the great nation we serve.

Lovely words, but I can't see the teabaggers buying in on it.

Yeah, he waited too late for this kind of talk. Seems like he's reaching for a legacy before it's too late for him. Unfortunately he let the dogs run wild a little too long and now they're wild dogs.

[candygirl200413]

If only McCain spoke out a lot earlier on this.

[GreyhoundFan]

"House approves $7.85 billion in Harvey relief, Trump sides with Democrats over length of debt limit hike"

Spoiler

President Trump wants Congress to fund the government for three months and raise the debt ceiling for the same amount of time, defying leaders from his own party and potentially giving Democrats leverage in debates over immigration, health care and federal spending.

Trump made his position clear at a White House meeting with congressional leaders on Wednesday, overruling top Republicans.

“In the meeting, the President and Congressional leadership agreed to pass aid for Harvey, an extension of the debt limit, and a continuing resolution both to December 15, all together,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement. “Both sides have every intention of avoiding default in December and look forward to working together on the many issues before us.”

The president’s decision, confirmed by Republicans, came barely an hour after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) panned the idea of a brief debt hike, accusing Democrats of “playing politics” with much needed Harvey relief by trying to create pressure for their agenda. Democrats believe this extension into December would increase their leverage on Republicans to secure stabilization funds for health-care markets and resolve the legal status of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

In their statement, Schumer and Pelosi also called on Congress to pass protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, after Trump rescinded an executive order signed by former president Obama that created a program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that allowed them to stay in the country without fear of deportation.

“As Democratic leaders, we also made it clear that we strongly believe the DREAM Act must come to the floor and pass as soon as possible and we will not rest until we get this done,” Schumer and Pelosi stated.

The meeting took place just as the House approved a $7.85 billion aid package for victims of Hurricane Harvey, its first major order of business following the August recess and Congress’s first step toward fulfilling President Trump’s promise of relief for South Texas.

The measure providing $7.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and $450 million for a disaster loan program for small businesses passed 419-3 with 12 representatives not voting. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) voted no. It now moves to the Senate, where leaders plan to hold a vote by the end of the week.

The House bill does not include language to raise the debt ceiling ahead of a late-September deadline, a relief to conservatives who oppose linking the two issues. But that doesn’t mean the lower chamber will ultimately avoid such a vote: Senate Republican leaders said they plan to attach a debt-ceiling hike to Harvey aid despite conservative opposition.

Democratic leaders had offered support for a combined package on Wednesday provided it only raises the debt ceiling for three months, a plan that would allow the minority party to maintain leverage on issues like government spending, health care and protections for immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, known as “dreamers,” before the end of the year.

“Given Republican difficulty in finding the votes for their plan, we believe this proposal offers a bipartisan path forward to ensure prompt delivery of Harvey aid as well as avoiding a default, while both sides work together to address government funding, dreamers, and health care,” Schumer and Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday.

Democrats view the debt limit as a rare opportunity for leverage in budget and spending talks expected to occur later this year, especially since Republicans typically have been unable to deliver enough votes to pass a borrowing increase or spending bill on their own.

Ryan called the offer a “ridiculous idea” and accused Democrats of trying to take advantage of the debt-ceiling deadline just as another storm — Hurricane Irma — barrels toward the coast of Florida.

“Let’s just think about this: We’ve got all this devastation in Texas. We’ve got another unprecedented hurricane about to hit Florida, and they want to play politics with the debt ceiling? … I think that’s ridiculous and disgraceful that they want to play politics with the debt ceiling at this moment when we have fellow citizens in need, to respond to these hurricanes so we do not strand them,” Ryan told a news conference on Wednesday.

Emergency relief is one of at least half a dozen must-pass items on Congress’s agenda this month. Lawmakers are under pressure to avoid a government shutdown and a U.S. debt default while reauthorizing critical programs like the Federal Aviation Administration and extending funds for health insurance for about 9 million children.

Trump added another matter to the pile Tuesday when he moved to rescind an executive order granting work permits to dreamers, setting a six-month deadline for Congress to act on a replacement.

Avoiding a government shutdown will be a difficult task. Government spending bills, like most other legislation, need 60 votes to pass the Senate. Republicans control 52 seats, meaning that they will have to turn to Democrats to provide at least eight votes to avert a government shutdown.

Conservatives worry that Democrats plan to demand increased spending on domestic priorities, like education and low-income assistance, in exchange for their votes. Schumer and Pelosi have also signaled that they will not vote for any funds to help pay for Trump’s long-promised wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, was among those who warned that Democrats’ short-term debt limit request could threaten Republican plans to cut spending.

“Obviously getting a [continuing resolution] and the debt ceiling to not come due at the same time would be the most prudent fiscal decision we could make,” Meadows told reporters.

The Freedom Caucus met Tuesday evening but did not adopt an official position to oppose an aid bill for Hurricane Harvey victims if it includes an increase in the federal debt limit — something that could complicate plans to deal with the two issues in tandem. But Meadows said there was “overwhelming” opposition to doing so and that the issue could be revisited if the Senate moves to attach a debt provision.

“It’s very clear that the majority of our members feel like attaching the debt ceiling — a clean debt ceiling without structural reforms — to Harvey relief is not something that they would support,” he said. “At the same time, we felt like it’s important that we deal with the Harvey relief.” He predicted Tuesday night that “all, or the majority of our members” would vote for the clean relief bill Wednesday morning.

If the group decides to vote against the bill, it could exacerbate tensions among House Republicans and raise the specter that the bill could pass without a majority of the majority party — violating an informal rule that Ryan had pledged to adhere to when he became speaker in 2015.

The Freedom Caucus did adopt a position for a favored approach to reforming the debt ceiling: raising it initially, but including a federal spending cap pegged to a fixed percentage of the gross domestic product that would decrease over time. “We’re willing to increase the debt ceiling if we actually address the underlying problem, namely the $20 trillion debt,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus leader.

The clash could erode conservatives’ confidence in Ryan ahead of a crucial stretch in the legislative calendar.

Specifically, it raised the possibility that most House Republicans could oppose a combined bill, violating an informal rule dictating that only measures supported by a majority of GOP members be brought to a vote.

Meadows, who led an effort to oust Ryan’s predecessor, John A. Boehner, declined to address what the consequences would be if House leaders bring forth a combined bill. But he said that he expected that bill to pass.

“It will probably pass with a majority of Democrats and enough Republicans to get it across the finish line,” he said, but added that the Freedom Caucus wanted to send a message to the public: “There’s a path to get it done with a [Republican] majority in the Senate and the House and yet we’re not doing that. Therein is the problem.”

In a sign that steps must be taken to appease skeptical House Republicans, a key Houston-area lawmaker floated a proposal that would attach language proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget to the Republican budget resolution — a separate piece of legislation that could see a House vote this month.

Rep. John Abney Culberson (R-Tex.), whose west Houston district has been devastated by flooding, said that conservatives could vote for a debt-limit increase in good conscience if they know a major spending reform is in the offing.

“Who could be opposed to a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution?” he said. “The U.S. cannot default on our debt — that’s just not acceptable. This is a solution that will work.”

While he said his proposal would offer a “clear path” to a constitutional amendment, the process set out under Article V of the Constitution would ultimately require ratification from three-fourths of states — a tall order, to say the least.

Republican leaders said the House would not leave Washington until Harvey relief is passed, leaving open the possibility of Saturday votes. “We will not leave until we get this done,” Ryan said.

I would wager the TT will change his mind again.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Health 202: 'Fix and Fine-Tune' could be the new GOP Obamacare slogan"

Spoiler

Repeal and replace, meet Fix and Fine-Tune. 

After spending months trying — and failing — to undo major parts of the Affordable Care Act, a growing number of Senate Republicans have turned their attention to a new goal: shoring up the insurance marketplaces under the law the GOP spent seven years fighting tooth and nail.

The effort convened in earnest yesterday when Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) kicked off the first of four bipartisan hearings on the subject. His goal: Strike a bipartisan deal by the end of next week.

“We had 31 senators at coffee this morning with our witnesses and we had 22 out of 23 at our hearing,” Alexander said in an interview afterward. “Half the Senate met today to work together to try to get a result.”

But interest doesn’t always equal action, as Congress has repeatedly demonstrated. Although this Senate is closer than it’s ever been to striking a truly bipartisan agreement on health care, there are still several political land mines that could derail its plans. 

Opening the hearing, Alexander made his give-a-little-to-get-a-little pitch: “To get a result, Democrats will have to agree to something — more flexibility for states — that some may be reluctant to support. And Republicans will have to agree to something — additional funding through the Affordable Care Act -- that some may be reluctant to support.” 

He added: “That is called a compromise.”

Given the fierce warfare between Democrats and Republicans over the law known as Obamacare, it’s nothing short of remarkable to hear a leading Republican utter the word “compromise” in the context of health care. So, how did we get here? And where do we go from here?

The answer to the first question is much simpler. Republicans, given full control of Congress and the White House, were unable to overcome their own disagreements and long-standing ideological divisions to pass a repeal-and-replace bill. And that, some Republicans say, fueled a desire for something new. 

“I do believe there’s much more impetus for a bipartisan bill,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of three Republicans who effectively killed the repeal-and-replace effort. 

Of course, that’s only part of the picture. Other Republican senators have not given up the goal of repeal and replace, a long-standing promise. Privately, many fear blowback — from a GOP base that heard vow after vow about taking down Obamacare — if they do not deliver. 

Asked Wednesday whether he would support a compromise along the lines of what Alexander is proposing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who is up for reelection in 2018, replied simply: “We’ll have plenty of time to debate Obamacare. And I believe we will honor our commitment to repeal it.”

So, it’s far from clear that enough Republicans will vote for any plan to stabilize the 2010 law they have so long reviled. Democrats are also a wild card, given that some are asking for more concessions than Alexander is offering. 

As Amy and Juliet report, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on HELP, “quickly reflected the Democrats’ differences with their Republican counterparts. The government should promise insurers cost-sharing payments for multiple years, she said.”

Complicating matters further, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) are pushing their own repeal-and-replace plan  — an alternative to the package that failed in July. 

And it has caught the eye of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is voicing his support. McCain voted against the July repeal-and-replace plan. "Asked if he supported [Graham-Cassidy], McCain told reporters, 'Yes. You think I wouldn't be?': He added: "If it's not through regular order then it's a mistake, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for it."

Here’s what we know: Alexander is a close ally of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — so his efforts are worth watching. He has the ear of the man who effectively controls the Senate. 

Here’s what we don’t know: Given all the other things Congress has on its plate this fall, whether McConnell is prepared for another round of arm-twisting on health care — or whether he will see it as a top priority. What happens in the House is also an open question. 

The fact that Republicans and Democrats are even talking to one another in earnest about health care is a major development, to be sure.

Whether those talks will lead to any tangible action, though, is what we’ll find out in the coming weeks. 

...

I know it looks promising, but I just don't trust Repug leadership.

[GreyhoundFan]

"McConnell introduces bill doubling hurricane aid package, extending federal borrowing limit"

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced legislation late Wednesday night that would pair a $15.25 billion disaster aid package with an agreement struck by President Trump and congressional Democrats to raise the federal borrowing limit and keep the government open until mid-December.

The package would double the total amount of disaster aid approved earlier in the day in the House. The Senate legislation includes $450 million for the Small Business Authority disaster loan program and $7.4 billion in grants for housing affected areas in addition to $7.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the House bill. The Senate legislation also gives Congress until Dec. 8 to negotiate a new spending agreement and increase the debt limit.

McConnell announced his support for the package following the surprise announcement from Democrats that Trump had accepted their request that any deadline for extending the federal borrowing limit line up with a short-term spending package. If approved, the legislation is expected to set the stage for a bruising year-end fiscal battle.

“The president agreed with Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi to do a three-month [funding extension] and a debt ceiling into December, and that’s what I will be offering, based on the president’s decision, to the bill,” McConnell told reporters after the meeting. “The president can speak for himself, but his feeling was that we needed to come together to not create a picture of divisiveness at a time of genuine national crisis.”

The Senate is expected to approve the package when it comes up for a vote, which could happen as early as Friday. The bill would then be sent to the House for final approval as leaders rush to approve FEMA money before emergency funds run out in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Some Congressional leaders have said they worry the agency’s coffers could run dry by week’s end.

“The legislation before the Senate would address the nation’s most pressing needs,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) in a statement. “The serious nature of the natural disasters and fiscal commitments before us demand the Senate and House act without delay. We need to act to support the victims, volunteers and first responders on the ground.”

Several details of the legislation, including the length of the spending and borrowing agreement, changed through the day Wednesday as GOP leaders finalized the details. Cochran said the final package was reached with support from the White House.

The significant increase in funding in the Senate bill is expected to help shore up emergency disaster relief programs as Hurricane Irma races through the Caribbean toward Florida.

Let's see if some of the teabaggers decide to fight this. They probably will.

[Audrey2]

19 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"McConnell introduces bill doubling hurricane aid package, extending federal borrowing limit"

  Reveal hidden contents

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced legislation late Wednesday night that would pair a $15.25 billion disaster aid package with an agreement struck by President Trump and congressional Democrats to raise the federal borrowing limit and keep the government open until mid-December.

The package would double the total amount of disaster aid approved earlier in the day in the House. The Senate legislation includes $450 million for the Small Business Authority disaster loan program and $7.4 billion in grants for housing affected areas in addition to $7.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the House bill. The Senate legislation also gives Congress until Dec. 8 to negotiate a new spending agreement and increase the debt limit.

McConnell announced his support for the package following the surprise announcement from Democrats that Trump had accepted their request that any deadline for extending the federal borrowing limit line up with a short-term spending package. If approved, the legislation is expected to set the stage for a bruising year-end fiscal battle.

“The president agreed with Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi to do a three-month [funding extension] and a debt ceiling into December, and that’s what I will be offering, based on the president’s decision, to the bill,” McConnell told reporters after the meeting. “The president can speak for himself, but his feeling was that we needed to come together to not create a picture of divisiveness at a time of genuine national crisis.”

The Senate is expected to approve the package when it comes up for a vote, which could happen as early as Friday. The bill would then be sent to the House for final approval as leaders rush to approve FEMA money before emergency funds run out in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Some Congressional leaders have said they worry the agency’s coffers could run dry by week’s end.

“The legislation before the Senate would address the nation’s most pressing needs,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) in a statement. “The serious nature of the natural disasters and fiscal commitments before us demand the Senate and House act without delay. We need to act to support the victims, volunteers and first responders on the ground.”

Several details of the legislation, including the length of the spending and borrowing agreement, changed through the day Wednesday as GOP leaders finalized the details. Cochran said the final package was reached with support from the White House.

The significant increase in funding in the Senate bill is expected to help shore up emergency disaster relief programs as Hurricane Irma races through the Caribbean toward Florida.

Let's see if some of the teabaggers decide to fight this. They probably will.

I'm really curious to see how Daniel Webster, the Tea Party representative from Florida will vote when it comes to the House, since it's his state that will be affected.