Looks like the House will vote today, with the CBO Score now out:
CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would result in a net increase in the deficit totaling $367 billion over the 2022-2031 period, not counting any additional revenue that may be generated by additional funding for tax enforcement.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57627
That lack of inclusion of potential revenue is important, if even half the fund Treasury expects to generate come in this will be a budgetary nothing burger:
The Treasury Department has contended the provision will generate another $400 billion and pay for the plan. The CBO estimated it would lead to only $127 billion more in net revenue, which would leave the bill’s spending roughly $250 billion short of being fully offset. That would put it approximately in line with the CBO’s estimated deficit impact for the bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed earlier this week with the support of Republicans and centrist Democrats alike.
you really have a strong belief in the goodness and redeemability of these folks don't you? I mean, 12 steps work for people who want to change and have healthy relationships with shame, guilt, and social pressure.
A white gay husband and father actually has a decent shot at nomination after seasoning in a cabinet position. While there will be a lot of pushback from conservative quarters for being gay, he got the veteran vibe going for him, and lets face it his skin color is more acceptable to a lot of folks.
Censure without removal would not be effective. Gosar can now be campaigned against on the most basic bread and butter level as ineffective for representing his constituents since he can't control himself enough to stay relevant and legislate. Absent loosing his committees censure become spitting into the wind for people who are generally immune to public shame.
given the lengths of sentences in other convictions and guilty please so far he's not really an outlier. He's just easier for the media to cover what with his colorful presentation day of.
Congress attempts to manage our head count by authorizing and reauthorizing FTE billets. How we fill them is up to us, but they control the total. So when a new office like you describe is stood up, if there's no additional billets it gets ... interesting.
“We anticipated that there’s apparently a legitimate difference of opinion,” Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), a key moderate, said on Tuesday. “I talked to the CBO guy [Phillip Swagel] last week and even he admitted there’s just different interpretations of how the consumer is going to react.
Man's got a point.
And let's be honest - a "bad" CBO score never stopped Republicans from doing what they wanted so I'm not sure why it should stop Democrats, especially when those democrats are trying to pass legislation to help actual Americans.
SO from inside the bureaucracy - most if not all federal statutes are too vague in their language to actually do anything with. Doubly so since Congress decided to create the farce that they don't do earmarks anymore. Which means that in a lot of cases, Presidents of both parties actually do have to do a lot of interpreting in order to fulfill their duties to take care that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully implemented.
That aside, as we've seen with the immigration debacle, Congress has become quite willing to NOT legislate on important issue presented to it. Which Means the Executive has to act, and the only real way to act is for the Executive to string together whatever legal authority does exist in an executive order. And this isn't because Presidents are failing to propose legislation - its because Congress is choosing not to legislate.
So yes, Congress could and should solve this problem - but you're aiming at the wrong target with your solutions.
Good for Congress. Even if this was just designed to bait liberals as Brandon suggests, its still way over a half dozen lines. Not that censure is stopping the Republican crazies in Congress (I'm looking at you Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor-Greene) but its better then nothing.
because there's no polling to back that up. There is little reported evidence in the media to back that up. And just because you disagree with the Constitutionality of an EO - which hasn't actually been litigated yet . . . . doesn't mean your interpretation backs up your assertion.
You don't have evidence on your side. You have wish casting.
The Democrats built the ACA on the skeleton of the Heritage Foundation's plans that were developed to push back on Hillary in the 1990's. Democrats did that in the vain hope that Republicans would support it. The plan a the time was billed as an interim step to both rein in HC costs and move partially to better access but not go as far as single payer.
I don't think the government should ban Fox News, or OAN, or Newsmax. I don't think they should be shielded for liability for the content they produce, and I don't think they should be free of pushback. Frankly I don't think they should call themselves fair and balanced either.
As for workers being fired for refusing the vaccine - if that's what a company wants to do because it impacts their bottom line, that's their business. If the government says you can't do business with us unless your staff is vaccinated - guess what, no one is forcing Lockheed or SAIC or anyone else to do business with the government. We require all sorts of other conditions on government contractors so this is really no different.
And you will note that unless case counts rise again most of the mandate for mask etc are being lifted. Even in DC. Liberals were never going to leave this stuff in place.
man, sometime you swing for the fences ... and miss wildly. But good on you for trying.
We are discussing principles. One that I hold to is that free speech means you have the right to NOT speak. You have the right to remove your speech from the public sphere. Which is what the Dr. Seuss publisher did.
Another principle I hold to is government does NOT have the right to force you to remove your speech from the public square, no matter how inconvenient. The Chicago Library is treading a dangerous border though it makes a convincing argument that offensive materials can and should be reexamined. I'm guessing the paper never went back to ask what the long term decisions were, since that article is from March and its now November.
And finally I'll say again - with as much feeling as I can in typed digital words - if you support policies that allow private actors to control their destiny's (and you and Density seem to do so regularly) then you have to support private actors acting here. No government entity - outside the Chicago library (which didn't actually ban the book if you read the article) - called for its removal. And no government entity or elected official called for it to be burned.
On “The Neverending Story: Build Back Better Legislative Edition”
Looks like the House will vote today, with the CBO Score now out:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57627
That lack of inclusion of potential revenue is important, if even half the fund Treasury expects to generate come in this will be a budgetary nothing burger:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/build-back-better-act-vote-cbo-releases-score-of-biden-plan.html
On “Joe Biden Needs to Be The Next Democratic Nominee”
I sit corrected.
"
Yep - and I even worked in his administration.
so 3 out of what, 46? Not good odds, and frankly had W not had his family connections I doubt he'd have done so well
"
Very few former governors do well as presidential candidates though. Clinton was the last one, and Reagan before him.
On “Congress Will Vote On Censure, Stripping of Committees of Representative Paul Gosar”
you really have a strong belief in the goodness and redeemability of these folks don't you? I mean, 12 steps work for people who want to change and have healthy relationships with shame, guilt, and social pressure.
Republican politicians don't have that at all.
"
so what would you rather we all do to lower the water level?
On “Joe Biden Needs to Be The Next Democratic Nominee”
A white gay husband and father actually has a decent shot at nomination after seasoning in a cabinet position. While there will be a lot of pushback from conservative quarters for being gay, he got the veteran vibe going for him, and lets face it his skin color is more acceptable to a lot of folks.
On “Congress Will Vote On Censure, Stripping of Committees of Representative Paul Gosar”
Censure without removal would not be effective. Gosar can now be campaigned against on the most basic bread and butter level as ineffective for representing his constituents since he can't control himself enough to stay relevant and legislate. Absent loosing his committees censure become spitting into the wind for people who are generally immune to public shame.
On “The “QAnon Shaman” Gets 41 Months In Prison”
given the lengths of sentences in other convictions and guilty please so far he's not really an outlier. He's just easier for the media to cover what with his colorful presentation day of.
On “Congress Will Vote On Censure, Stripping of Committees of Representative Paul Gosar”
We don't really need any more data.
On “The “QAnon Shaman” Gets 41 Months In Prison”
I suspect a LOT of them feel stupid now. And a LOT of them feel betrayed by Trump. One wonders how that will play out.
On “Congress Will Vote On Censure, Stripping of Committees of Representative Paul Gosar”
Agreed.
And frankly Kevin McCarthy's refusal to do anything about it makes him appear weak and cowardly. Ironic I think.
"
Indeed history does point to this.
On “Executive Dictatorship: A Look At Some Of The Most Egregious EO’s”
Congress attempts to manage our head count by authorizing and reauthorizing FTE billets. How we fill them is up to us, but they control the total. So when a new office like you describe is stood up, if there's no additional billets it gets ... interesting.
On “The Neverending Story: Build Back Better Legislative Edition”
Man's got a point.
And let's be honest - a "bad" CBO score never stopped Republicans from doing what they wanted so I'm not sure why it should stop Democrats, especially when those democrats are trying to pass legislation to help actual Americans.
On “Executive Dictatorship: A Look At Some Of The Most Egregious EO’s”
SO from inside the bureaucracy - most if not all federal statutes are too vague in their language to actually do anything with. Doubly so since Congress decided to create the farce that they don't do earmarks anymore. Which means that in a lot of cases, Presidents of both parties actually do have to do a lot of interpreting in order to fulfill their duties to take care that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully implemented.
That aside, as we've seen with the immigration debacle, Congress has become quite willing to NOT legislate on important issue presented to it. Which Means the Executive has to act, and the only real way to act is for the Executive to string together whatever legal authority does exist in an executive order. And this isn't because Presidents are failing to propose legislation - its because Congress is choosing not to legislate.
So yes, Congress could and should solve this problem - but you're aiming at the wrong target with your solutions.
On “Congress Will Vote On Censure, Stripping of Committees of Representative Paul Gosar”
Good for Congress. Even if this was just designed to bait liberals as Brandon suggests, its still way over a half dozen lines. Not that censure is stopping the Republican crazies in Congress (I'm looking at you Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor-Greene) but its better then nothing.
"
Just like Trump's words were never seen by reasonable people as a call to attack the Capitol on January 6th?
On “NeverTrumpers Must “Fork” the GOP”
because there's no polling to back that up. There is little reported evidence in the media to back that up. And just because you disagree with the Constitutionality of an EO - which hasn't actually been litigated yet . . . . doesn't mean your interpretation backs up your assertion.
You don't have evidence on your side. You have wish casting.
On “The Vanishing Of The Drug Stores: Rural Pharmacies On The Decline”
Single payer is not government run healthcare, and it would reduce costs.
On “NeverTrumpers Must “Fork” the GOP”
And the videos of parents screaming at school board members about knowing where they live after mask mandate meetings? What do you think those are?
On “The Vanishing Of The Drug Stores: Rural Pharmacies On The Decline”
The Democrats built the ACA on the skeleton of the Heritage Foundation's plans that were developed to push back on Hillary in the 1990's. Democrats did that in the vain hope that Republicans would support it. The plan a the time was billed as an interim step to both rein in HC costs and move partially to better access but not go as far as single payer.
It was never a leftist proposal.
On “NeverTrumpers Must “Fork” the GOP”
What should we call parents who threaten to kill school board members who don't end CRT? Are they misunderstood?
"
I don't think the government should ban Fox News, or OAN, or Newsmax. I don't think they should be shielded for liability for the content they produce, and I don't think they should be free of pushback. Frankly I don't think they should call themselves fair and balanced either.
As for workers being fired for refusing the vaccine - if that's what a company wants to do because it impacts their bottom line, that's their business. If the government says you can't do business with us unless your staff is vaccinated - guess what, no one is forcing Lockheed or SAIC or anyone else to do business with the government. We require all sorts of other conditions on government contractors so this is really no different.
And you will note that unless case counts rise again most of the mandate for mask etc are being lifted. Even in DC. Liberals were never going to leave this stuff in place.
"
man, sometime you swing for the fences ... and miss wildly. But good on you for trying.
We are discussing principles. One that I hold to is that free speech means you have the right to NOT speak. You have the right to remove your speech from the public sphere. Which is what the Dr. Seuss publisher did.
Another principle I hold to is government does NOT have the right to force you to remove your speech from the public square, no matter how inconvenient. The Chicago Library is treading a dangerous border though it makes a convincing argument that offensive materials can and should be reexamined. I'm guessing the paper never went back to ask what the long term decisions were, since that article is from March and its now November.
And finally I'll say again - with as much feeling as I can in typed digital words - if you support policies that allow private actors to control their destiny's (and you and Density seem to do so regularly) then you have to support private actors acting here. No government entity - outside the Chicago library (which didn't actually ban the book if you read the article) - called for its removal. And no government entity or elected official called for it to be burned.