posted
Same deal as the Green Energy News Center and Stargate News Center threads. For fans of the Green news thread, I'll be going to a two or three a week update schedule, and all others are welcome to make contributions as well. For this, I plan to update it a couple times a week as I see articles. I expect people will still continue to start separate thread to debate specific issues, and that's fine, but here's a nice easy place to get information during the week without venturing from Hatrack. Others are free to contribute as they will, and I'd be happy if they would.
Without further ado:
House passes AMT patch worth more than $70 billion. The good: Millions of middle class families will be saved from a big tax burden. The bad: Republicans wouldn't let Democrats raise taxes elsewhere to make it revenue neutral, so there's no way to pay for it. There's a big debate over the AMT. Democrats say we need to pay for the cuts that need to be made for the AMT, but Republicans say you don't have to pay for something that doesn't cost money, since it's a tax cut. Except that future budgets all include AMT funds when figuring out revenue, so it DOES need to be paid for. This $70 billion will likely go on the national credit card.
Michigan House members warn Congress to keep hands off Great Lakes water. The good: Congress looks like they are getting serious about water management, FINALLY. The bad: Great Lakes states worry that comments like Bill Richardson's about Wisconsin being "awash in water" and the growing populations and their problems in drought stricken areas will lead to Federal mandating of water pipes from the Great Lakes, 80% of the United States' surface fresh water, to drought stricken areas. I support smart water management, but not using Great Lakes water to solve the national problem. I'd be willing to consider it if we charged for a barrel of water what Alaska gets for a barrel of oil, but even then I'd probably say no. Until those states get smart and serious about their own water usage, hands off our water.
Featured Article Congress overturns Pres. Bush veto for the first time. Hooray for Congress! They finally did something incredibly important and didn't let politics get in the way! Despite their other mistakes in recent days, I'm very proud of them. This was a very important bill. US infrastructure is sorely in need of spending over many areas, and this is one of them. Sewers constantly overflow all over the country during heavy rains, and raw sewage pours into rivers as a result, at the same time the environment is being damaged by poor water management, to say nothing of economic losses and the effect on people's daily lives. This was a smart investment in American infrastructure, and it's one of the few times I can pay Congress on the back (metaphorically) and say "good job!"
Dems take control of VA senate, make gains in House. What does this mean for the national scene? VA has been steering solidly Democrat in recent years. In a state I don't think Democrats have won for the presidential election in 30 or 40 years, they've taken the state senate, gained in the House, won a national senate race, are poised to win another one in 08, and still more Democratic voters flock to Northern Virginia (NOVA). This means Republicans will have to fight for a state in 08 that they'd previously taken for granted, and could swing the election to the Democrats, and may prove a deadly nail in the coffin of Republican dreams of retaking the US Senate.
Democrats narrowly passed a measure that would tie war funding to a withdrawel of troops in the House. It's largely a symbolic gesture as it has zero chance of passing the White House, or overturning the veto, and the Senate will likely not even passing it. If Democrats were serious they wouldn't even send Bush a funding bill. No money means no war, and that's their biggest weapon, but they won't pull the trigger on it. So they play a political ploy to get Republicans on record as supporting the war. If they aren't willing to go all the way, I think this is bad timing when there are better domestic issues to hit the President on. But that's just me.
I was out the other night with my brother and a friend of his, we went to one of the casinos in Detroit and played some craps and poker (craps bad, I lost my money, but poker good, I won $200 off my brother's money). Afterwards we went to a restaurant to get some early morning food, and we got around to politics where my brother's friend asked me who would win the election. I told him my answer, and then launched into a 25 minute explanation of state houses and recent polling data, etc etc. Finally he held up his hand and said "how the hell do you know all that?" To which my brother answered for me "he reads all day, he's like Josh on the West Wing or something."
It was a compliment from both of them, they were impressed that I spend so much time reading up on issues, but maybe I'm starting to second guess how much time I spend staying on top of issues.
Problem is, whenever I consider NOT spending time reading up on all these issues, I feel like I'm really missing out on something. I think I'm addicted to the news.
Dag -
Some of the link titles do have a fair bit of commentary, and sometimes I add more afterwards outside of the link. But did you read the link? He's bashing Democrats for making basically the same progress Republicans made on federal judgeships in two years that Republicans made in four years. And he's saying they are intentionally stalling the process. By any definition it IS hypocritical, and for that matter, it's extremely partisan. If you want to click the link and get the story from the source you're free to do so, that's why I put links there. If it was just a commentary thread, you wouldn't have links, you'd just have editorials. But if your comment is that you'd either like me to tone it down, or make the actual link more neutral with a possible commentary follow up, then I'd welcome the suggestion, though perhaps you could try and be less helpful next time, thanks.
Edited again to add to what I said to Dagonee -
Here's the thing. I could put up a post with a dozen links that all just say:
"link"
"link"
"link"
etc etc. And that would be the news without any interjection from me whatsoever, but I don't think it'd get very much attention. I try to give a very short summary on what the article in the link is to, so if people want to skip all the details but still get the gist, they can. And if they want to bypass anything I have to say about it, they can click on the links and get the story from the news source directly. I don't think what I had to say on that specific link title was wrong in any way, but I think you had a point, in that my link was skewed and didn't include enough of the summary of the article if I was going to try at all, so I added more information.
If you have a specific complaint with my comments, and after having read the article in question want to disagree with me, go for it. This doesn't need to be just a news thread, it can, as we're on a forum, also be a place to discuss the news as well, or are you just attacking me for the sake of attacking me? That's what it looks like. You didn't take a substantive position, and I'm not sure one way or the other if you even read the article in question. Thus I don't know if you were just going after me in traditional Dag PC fashion, or if you actually had a position on the matter.
Sorry if I appear snappy, but I think your post was useless as it was without further details. And rather than have you make no comment at all, I'd love for you to actually expand upon what you said so I can make this thread better.
In Presidential primary news, some recent Iowa polling has shown that Obama may have a slight lead over Clinton on the Democratic side. I think statistically it is too close to call, but many of us know what can happen when a candidate is vaulted to the forefront with a strong early primary showing. Iowa and New Hampshire, for better or for worse, make and break national elections.
In other news, the deputy commissioner of the 9/11 Comission announced that he was not supporting Rudy Giuliani and was instead supporting John McCain, which may come as a blow to a Giuliani campaign that touts safety and security, to say nothing of his 9/11 credentials, as a top focusing factor in his platform message.
posted
My principle point is that you've billed this thread as a "news center," yet your putting in commentary. Why not call it "Lyrhawn's opinion on selected stories that have something to do with Congress"?
quote:Some of the link titles do have a fair bit of commentary, and sometimes I add more afterwards outside of the link. But did you read the link? He's bashing Democrats for making basically the same progress Republicans made on federal judgeships in two years that Republicans made in four years. And he's saying they are intentionally stalling the process. By any definition it IS hypocritical,
By any definition, that's shallow analysis that doesn't even attempt to investigate, yet alone reach a cogent conclusion, about a host of possible issues.
Perhaps you recall that whole filibuster dispute from a few years bag - specific times when democrats were slowing down the nomination process. There are lots of ways short of actual filibuster to slow down the judicial nomination process. And there's a lot more reason to slow it down when the party knows that they won't win once it reaches the floor.
Was it the democrats' or republicans' fault? I don't know. But neither do you based on a simplistic comparison of the numbers.
There is, of course, another side to allegations of hypocrisy, and that is whether Bush criticized the Senate for slowness on judicial nominees when the republicans controlled it.
And for those watching from home, the original headline at issue was unaccompanied by any commentary whatsoever. It was simply "Pres. Bush offers up hypocritical barb on Congress and the courts."
"By any definition," hypocrisy is more complicated than you've made it out to be.
quote:This doesn't need to be just a news thread, it can, as we're on a forum, also be a place to discuss the news as well, or are you just attacking me for the sake of attacking me? That's what it looks like. You didn't take a substantive position, and I'm not sure one way or the other if you even read the article in question. Thus I don't know if you were just going after me in traditional Dag PC fashion
It's also a place for me to comment on what you said. And I did.
As for "traditional PC fashion," you're being ridiculous. Almost every link is given a news headline. The one I singled out wasn't. I was liking this thread, but then I realized it's just going to be another thread where people make one-line potshots without analyzing anything. So I commented.
And please stop pushing the idea that my not taking a substantive position somehow means I'm being "PC" or "attacking you." I was attacking what you said - which was not a substantive position, but a one-line throwaway accusation that you couldn't be bothered to back up until you wanted to call me to task for not being "substantive."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to break your post in half, as I think your second post is really just an extension of the first (and perhaps a little childish that you found that sentence specifically important enough to tack on an extra post for), the first part being on what seems to be your biggest sticking point, the original link that I made that you commented on and the thread in general, and the second being your complaint about my comments on your post. And I offer what you mind find to be a more genuine apology than what I gave in the other post, for the aggressive tone of the post.
1. I changed the original offending link because I think you're right. I don't think that I went into near enough detail, and if I was going to go into any detail at all about it, I should have gone all the way and done a fair job of analysis rather than let my bias color my remarks and only let certain sides of a much deeper issue get through.
I've gone back over the thread, and found one, maybe two posts that could have strayed beyond what I think is helpful analysis into trivial commentary, but just barely. You said that you liked the post at first, presumably because you found it either helpful or informative, and one link in one post was all it took to take you from that to "but then I realized it's just going to be another thread where people make one-line potshots without analyzing anything"? Either you're being extremely harsh with your judgement, or you have a bigger problem with the thread than that post, which again, I will invite you to comment on, for if you really, really think that that's all I'm doing here, I'd like to know, because that's not my intention for this thread, and I'll fix it if I agree with you. I don't however agree with your take on the thread. I think by far I've offered valuable news, and when I've gone beyond a basic summary of the articles, I've given a short, but helpful analysis of some aspect of the situation.
2. Would you agree with me that your original "one-line potshot" (if you will) on the offending link was not helpful? I'm not taking issue with you not liking what I said, if anything, I'm taking issue with you not going into enough detail on it. You didn't like the fact that I gave a shallow commentary lacking in real analysis, and I agree with you! But if you're expecting that from me (if I'm going to say anything at all), am I not being fair in asking the same of you?
I thank you for taking the time to explain further what you meant to begin with, and I'd invite you to expand upon that with some constructive criticism if you will, as I'd bet if you're thinking it, maybe someone else who has come to this thread might be as well and I don't want to drive anyone away from what could be very useful information because they think I'm just turning this thread into a personal blog, as you seem to think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you agree with me that your original "one-line potshot" (if you will) on the offending link was not helpful?
No. It conveyed the exact message I wanted to convey.
quote:I'm not taking issue with you not liking what I said, if anything, I'm taking issue with you not going into enough detail on it.
You didn't go into detail in the original post, either. Which meant that I wasn't going to take time to address your substantive comment - I quite simply didn't feel like addressing it on the merits until you added your additional commentary.
The detail I gave was exactly sufficient to deliver my message. It spurred you to change the link and add analysis (which I didn't see because I was going by the last post date, and I read your post before you added the part to address me).
Therefore it was both helpful - you had a realization from it that was, I think, a good one - and of sufficient detail, judging by the fact that you clearly got my message.
quote:But if you're expecting that from me (if I'm going to say anything at all), am I not being fair in asking the same of you?
Certainly, but not in the first instance. That is, my response to brief analysis will generally be brief analysis.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly, but not in the first instance. That is, my response to brief analysis will generally be brief analysis.
I think this discussion would've gone a lot faster had you gone right to the explanation, BUT, I can see why you didn't and I can't say I blame you for it.
Was that link the only real problem you had, or do you think the thread as a whole is still flawed?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not so much Congressional news today as political news, but they're in recess so I have to fill the void with something, besides, there's some exciting news.
Featured Article The Chairman of the FCC fired a warning shot across the bow of major cable providers in the US. From the looks of things, they are firing back too. My favorite part of the proposed changes is potentially making it okay for consumers to buy channels a la carte, or buy just the channels we want to watch instead of having to swallow dozens of channels we don't want. These changes are possible because of a controversial 70-70 rule, which the Comissioner has said is met because cable providers are in 70% of homes (well that's the gist of it). That opens them up to more regulation, and I love the idea of buying channels a la carte. On the other side, the cable companies claim that the rule hasn't been met, that the FCC doesn't have the power to regulate, that independent cable channels are not too expensive, and that changing to an a la carte system will make all channels more expensive.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any info on what is going to happen with the H.R. 3093: Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008?
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A continuing funding measure was written into the defense approprations bill that Pres. Bush signed into law earlier this month, which extends temporary funding to all agencies through December 14th.
You can expect the two parties to do a lot of negotiating when Congress gets back in session, I think on the 10th. They'll either have to get another continuing resolution passed for funding, or come to an agreement for the remaining appropriations bills by the 14th, of which 3093 is one. I think it's likely you'll see it passed before the end of the year, but it's hard to say right now what kind of funding changes it'll get until Congress gets back in session and we see where everyone stands.
The plan, as I understand it, is to pass all remaining (all but the Defense bill that was already passed) bill as one giant omnibus bill worth apprx. $950 billion. The sticking point is Pres. Bush wants something closer to $923 billion, but Democrats want $22 billion more than he's willing to go. Everything comes down to how willing they are to deal with each other, or how many votes Democrats can get from Republicans to override a veto. It's possible on some measures, like the Farm Bill, but for the whole budget we still don't know exactly what deal will be made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the information! Funding for my job (next year) is in that act. It is making it difficult to plan projects for next year not knowing if we will receive funding or not.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what your job is, but it looks like the fight right now is over how much MORE spending to do, as opposed to where to make cuts, so there's probably a good chance that it'll pass before the end of the year.
Can you say what your job is? I can try and specifically look for it, if you really want to know.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I consider myself pretty well read and up-to-date in the political arena, but I learn something new every time I check this thread. Thanks, and keep it coming.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Like I've said, since Congress is in recess for the next week and a half, I'll be broadening this thread out a bit. I was thinking of opening a separate thread for Presidential Primary news, but I've already got three of these things going and I don't want to piss anyone off, so, for the moment I'll be folding some of that news into this thread, if no one minds.
In a small step forward, Israel and Palestine have agreed to a timetable on peace talks. But keep in mind some rather huge obstacles are in the way. Both sides have potential deal breakers (Israel wants everyone to recognize them as a Jewish state, and Palestine wants East Jerusalem as a capital), and in the case of Palestine, there's no guarantee that the people will even go along with whatever agreements Abbas makes.
These next three are FactCheck articles, which means they're pretty thorough, have source material, and are longer than most of what I post, so you'll have to click the links to get the details. This will be your Presidential Primary News Featurette.
Giuliani missing a lot of facts about the Big Apple and what he says he did there. Tiny interesting note of personal interest in this article: Giuliani calls NYC the most liberal city in America. Personally I'd say San Francisco. But it turns out NYC is way down on the list, and the number one city based on 2004 election data is? Detroit! Yay! Ironically it's ring by a fortress of conservative cities, but it's still interesting. Also interesting is comparing the most dangerous cities to the most liberal cities, there's some freaky matchups in numbers (I mean, Gary, IN, Detroit, MI, Washington DC?)
Give them both credit though, they DID do a lot of good things, but they both seem to be taking a lot of credit for stuff they either had nothing to do with, or stuff that never happened at all.
posted
I think the funding is listed under University of South Alabama domestic violence or youth violence. I'm not having much luck finding it in THOMAS.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. I can't find anything specific for this year, though I've found your funding from previous years, and specifically the earmark that funded you in 2005.
Given how relatively small your yearly funding is, I think even if they WANTED to cut it, it'd likely fall through the cracks. And if they did want to cut it, it'd look pretty bad to attack an appropriation for Youth Violence Provention (I assume it's the YVPP?) especially when it's such a small amount of money in the overall budget, or even the Justice Department's budget.
You might have to wait a month, but I think you'll be fine, and might even see a little boost in funding. That's just my opinion though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I looked a little bit further and found the Department of Justice proposed budget for FY2008, and then went into the Juvenile Justice Program, which is part of the Office of Justice Programs, where your funding resides.
I'll keep looking for a bigger breakdown of specifically funded programs, but it looks like the proposed funding for the Juvenile Justice Program as a whole is being requested for a net cut of roughly $16 million less than FY2007. It was about $303 million in 2006, and about $270 million in FY2007 (estimated), and it looks like they are asking for $254 million for FY2008, but I'm not sure if this is the Congressional version or the Presidential version.
Well wait...okay, I read it a couple more times and actually it's a bit more complicated. It appears the proposal is actually to scrap the entire Juvenile Justice Program as it stands, and instead create a new system.
quote:This new initiative will eliminate all earmarks for existing juvenile justice programs and create a single, flexible competitive grant program that can address multiple child safety juvenile justice needs as well as school safety. This initiative will also fund activities authorized under the Walsh Act. The number in brackets denotes the level of programmatic funding available after administrative funding is subtracted from the $280 million total for this new initiative.
When you remove Administrative costs from the $280M, you get $254M, which I might add, is about DOUBLE what Administrative costs were in 2006, though only $5M more than what it was in 2007.
So if I'm reading this correctly, your continuing earmark that provides funding for the program, will be eliminated. Your program will have to apply for funds under the new grant system. I have no idea how the grant system works, and keep in mind this is just a proposal.
I could look for more, but I really don't know what else I could find that'd tell you anything, but feel free to take that and look for more if you can find it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I read it wrong? I'm not entirely sure, and it's possible that this won't even make it into the final bill.
Don't fret right now. Keep your eyes open and see if there's anything you can do (including writing to your Congresspeople) to find out the details.
I'll keep my eyes out for anything on the Justice Department, and maybe on Saturday when I have more time I'll actually try and plow into the white house budget proposal to see if it matches up, but there might not be a point for two reasons. 1. Since the proposed change doesn't itemize programs, looking for more information seems a moot point. 2. Congress and the White House have yet to reconcile the funding differences in their proposed budgets, which makes it a moot point as well.
The best thing I could tell you is to find the House, Senate, and White House versions of the DoJ budget and check, and if they all say the same thing, this will become your new reality. The thing to do then is try and find details on how the grant program works. If all else fails, you can hope that the same guy who provided you with earmark funding to start with does it again if you fail to get a grant.
In other words, lots of information, don't stress about it now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Republican Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott has announced he will be resigning before the end of the year. He is the sixth Republican to announce retirement thus far this year. An interim replacement will be chosen by the Governor of Mississippi and a special election will be held in November of 08 for a replacement for the remainder of his term. The seat is extremely likely to stay in Republican hands.
Also, apparently Congress is back in session, and I was off by a week on that. I thought they had longer off for the Thanksgiving Holidays, but I guess not. Votes are scheduled for next week (for example, the Global Warming bill comes up for a vote in the House on the 5th, and has a strong chance of passing), and a fair bit of news is coming out of Washington, so I guess it's back to normal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pres. Bush offers up hypocritical barb on Congress and the courts.
You should call this the commentary thread, not the news thread.
No less accurate than any of a hundred talk radio stations that call themselves "news radio"... Probably a good deal more so, in fact.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Murtha says "surge is working" but that the final solution won't come without a political solution. This he says on the heels of every Sunni member of the Iraqi Parliament walking out on a session in protest. I agree with him, the "surge" does appear to be working, in concert with about a dozen other things that all happened at the same time, but until a political settlement is reached, I don't see it going anywhere.
posted
Now that Congress is back in session, the budget showdown between Congressional Democrats and Pres. Bush looms. So far Pres. Bush has been totally unwilling to compromise at all, but he might if Democrats are serious this time about war spending. If you want my opinion, Democrats will probably get minor spending increases and Pres. Bush will get all the money he wants. Why? Democrats are stupid. If they were smart, they wouldn't tie war funding to an arbitrary withdrawel date. The war is actually doing better lately, and there's already a troop drawdown in the offing. If they were smart they'd give Pres. Bush his short term funding and fund the war through say June or so. They aren't willing to really get serious and just not fund the war in order to end it, so why not negotiate for as much as you can get? Giving the president his money free and clear of conditions (but NOT without oversight!) would likely get the Democrats the majority of their spending increases. Then they could focus their energies on solving the political problems in Iraq. If it turns out they can't be solved, then they could come back and say "Hey, we supported this war even when we thought it was a bad idea, but now we've seen that there's no political solution, and we can't stay there forever while they figure this crap out." It gives them what they want, plus some high ground to work from, to say nothing of shutting up Republicans on the war issue. But they won't do that. They will dig in their heels until the last moment, and then totally roll over. The fact that the public still thinks Democrats should be in control of Congress I think speaks measures on how much they must not like Republicans at the moment, because the Democrats are bumbling idiots.
But like I said, that's just my opinion, feel free to skip over that part and just read the article.
Presidential Primary News Featurette Democratic "superdelegates" are still largely uncommitted in the race. Superdelegates are the term for people who get a vote at the nominating convention but don't have to be voted for themselves. They're party officials, some elected officials (like governors, etc) and they get to lend a vote. Candidates need a bit more than 2,000 votes to win the nom, and there's 800 superdelegates, making them a uniquely powerful force in the nominating process. Many of them are holding back for fear of Clinton's electability, and a strong showing from Obama in Iowa (where he leads) or New Hampshire (where he narrowed a 27 point gap to 13 points last month) will go a long way towards swinging support his way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I didn't know this, but apparently New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina are also in violation of DNC rules on primary dates, by moving their dates weeks ahead of their assigned day. But the DNC has given them waivers, whereas Florida and Michigan have been banned. This inequality is leading many to cry foul of the selective rule enforcement.
I expect a flurry of news in the coming weeks, since a year's worth of legislation is going to be stuffed home in three weeks, or it'll fail, but either way it'll be news.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Global warming bill, which woud place mandatory reductions on US emissions, clears committee and will make it to the Senate floor, where armageddon will ensue. The Good? Well if you're a supporter of this bill, you might like the arguments being used against it. Leading Republicans against the bill aren't shooting it down outright, they're seeking relief valves in the legislation to make sure businesses will be protected if it gets too expensive. Sure, they want to gut it a bit, but they aren't just rejecting it out of hand, which I think shows major movement on this issue. The bad? It stands little chance of becoming law as is. Democrats will have to fight off major assaults from Republicans who want to amend it heavily, and one plucky independent from Vermont who wants to make it more aggressive.
Likely outcome? Some form of the bill WILL be passed, vetoed by Bush, and will lie dead until the next Congress and White House come into power, unless a major compromise is reached.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today has two main topics: The AMT patch and the Energy Bill. If you've read this thread at all, you are probably aware of both issues. The AMT, or Alternative Minimum Tax, was designed to make sure millionaires paid their taxes (all the loopholes in the tax code made that a serious worry), but due to an error in its making, it is increasingly hitting lower earners. The solution? Make sure the tax doesn't effect those lower earners. The problem? The budget assumes the revenue from those people, so having them not pay means less money, which means higher deficit. Getting rid of the AMT entirely would cost $80 billion a year for 10 years. Democrats want to pay for that loss of revenue by cutting spending elsewhere or raising other taxes. Republicans don't want to do anything, they say that it doesn't need to be paid for because it's a tax cut.
It's hard to say what will happen, but it's likely there are enough Democratic votes in the House to stymie legislation that doesn't come up with revenue replacements, and it won't pass without their support. If it doesn't pass, millions of Americans are going to be in trouble. Hard to guess what will happen.
Yeah it'll pass eventually, but there are three or four major sticking points still:
1. Renewable energy mandates. Democrats want mandatory minimums on renewable energy used nationwide, Pres. Bush says that isn't fair for regions that don't have the wind and solar potential that say, California has.
2. Oil industry tax credits repealed. Democrats want to use the money to pay for the burdgeoning renewable industry, or at least for a certain amount of tax credits to give them a hand. Pres. Bush says they still need the credits so they can increase production of oil domestically. Personally I find this a rather vapid claim, considering record windfall profits for the industry, and their dismal spending on exploring new fields. They're banking, not spending, and I don't think the US should be funding it, especially given how much they HAVEN'T been paying in royalties to the Fed.
3. CAFE standards. Pres. Bush still doesn't like even the watered down compromise version, but he'll likely have to swallow it. A 1,000 page bill isn't going to die over 10mpg.
Republicans have already gotten some of their most hated portions of the bill removed back in committee over the summer, but it remains to be seen exactly what sort of compromise will be met. An Energy Bill has to pass, but Pres. Bush thus far has been unwilling to even slightly compromise, and Democrats seem more or less fired up over this one. The Senate is due to take up this issue next week, so we'll see.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually kind of curious to see what happens if neither side backs down on the AMT, and everyone in the $67k-$150k range has to pay AMT. Naturally there'd be a lot of finger-pointing in both directions across the aisle, but my hunch is that the blame would stick more on the Democrats.
After reading the earlier link about the debt, I'm on the paying for the AMT patch side. Heck, I'm all for closing the hedge-fund manager tax loopholes even if they don't cut the AMT.
posted
Despite some efforts on their part, China says industrialized nations, led by the US, should pay the price to lower emissions. Yeah I see their point, China is saying it's not their fault Western nations have been polluting for a century and a half, they just got into the game, and even though China now emits more than the US, they have a billion more people. It's a fair argument, but it also doesn't matter in the end. If the goal is to reduce global emissions, even if the top industrialized nations of the world cut their emissions dramatically, China's, and the third world's growth will negate any gains made. The first world should do their part, and should help the third world, but they shouldn't expect a pass to make the same mistakes we did.
A guess at what breaking Congressional gridlock might look like. Politico is banking on the Dems losing most of what they want. The AMT patch will pass without offsets, the energy bill will pass with the upgraded CAFE standards, but at the price of the new spending and tax offsets and the renewable mandates. I'll be disappointed if that happens. Giving up those second two to get the first isn't worth it, since it's the least important of the three, but I wouldn't be as sad to lose the mandates, they really aren't fair.
GOP Senators calling for a Congressional review of the Iran NIE, what intel was used, and how the analysis was reached. Washington insiders are calling this the extreme Right's power play. They (probably joined by a silent Cheney) are more or less pissed (I question this characterization) that the NIE is saying Iran isn't after nukes, and they are mad that Pres. Bush isn't beating the war drums. I do agree that these are probably warhawks that are pushing for some sort of confrontation, but I find it hard to believe that they'd actually be mad that Iran isn't after nukes. Still, it's Congressional oversight, and I don't have a problem with a more scrutinized look at the NIE.
Republicans blocked the Energy Bill in the Senate. No surprise. Democrats had to know this wasn't coming to a vote without some reworking, but we'll have to wait and see what sort of deal they can make. Pressure is really starting to rise as the end of the year approaches and so many spending bills are still unpassed.
I also read elsewhere that the White House was actually sitting down with Democrats to discuss the spending bills, which is a welcomed sign. It appears the White House is willing to compromise on domestic spending increases afterall.
I may do another post later tonight, possibly including some primary news.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell try and work out a split the difference bill in the Senate, House Appropriations chief David Obey says 'forget it.'
At issue? Democrats wanted about $20 billion in spending for domestic programs, much of it sent to programs that Pres. Bush has cut in recent years for sewer and water developments, community building, firefighters, etc, that sort of thing. They agreed to cut it in half if Republicans agreed to go above the president's budget. They entered negotiations to see what could be worked out, but David Obey (previous mentioned House Approp. chief) wonders why they are even bothering. Rather than negotiation not in good faith for "table scraps" (his words), he says he will create a bill that matches Pres. Bush's budget ceiling exactly, and he'll do it by gutting Republican pet projects.
Considering the billions upon billions Republicans are throwing around, and what the President wants for Iraq and Afghanistan, crying foul over $11 billion for domestic spending increases is laughable. "Fiscal respoinsibility" is turning into a punchline rather than a rallying cry, for both sides.
Personally, I hope that Obey's version isn't passed, but I do hope that it serves as a wake up call to both sides of Congress and the White House about spending. We just approved an almost half trillion dollar Defense bill, and can't come up with $11 billion for infrastructure and community building? Doesn't do much good to save the world if we can't save stuff here at home. Both sides are full of crap over fiscal responsibility and I think it's going to be a big issue in the next election.
Ironically Democrats (outside of Washington) poll higher than Republicans on issues like the economy and budget, and nationally Democrats in Congress poll higher when people are asked who they trust our national economy and budget to. If you start to see, nationally, the economy trump terrorism as a concern, look for Democratic gains to be made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's some wrangling to be done in the deal making there. I won't go into all the details, but both sides are offering various alternative plans and threats, and it's hard to say what a final deal will look like.
New details are emerging over the CIA's destroying of detainee torturings on tape. Apparently the June before the November when the tapes were destroyed, a federal judge ordered the Administration to not tamper with the evidence pertaining to interrogations at Guantanamo. The hitch? Apparently the tapes were created at one of the CIA's hidden secret prisons somewhere in Europe. The legal defense will be that the order didn't extend to the European prisons, but on the other side people are saying regardless it is illegal for the Administration to destroy evidence, besides, while the letter of the order pertained to Guantanamo, by its nature it still includes all evidence of illegal torture. I'm sure we'll hear more on it soon.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republicans in the Senate managed to block the Energy Bill today. Harry Reid said he will strip the energy incentives package from the bill, which means oil companies will still get their massive tax breaks, and incentives for renewables will not happen, to which Republicans and the White House have indicated that version of the bill will likely pass. Proponents are saying the CAFE standards increase is historic and impressive, but I am personally extremely disappointed in Congressional Republicans. All of them are talking about energy independence but apparently weren't willing to make a major step. They complained about targeting as specific industry (the oil industry) for tax hikes (the taxes already exist, this is repealing a tax break, I think it's a real difference), but are okay with targeting the auto industry? Both industries have had their day in the sun, and especially for the oil industry, they've raked in record profits, why are we subsidizing their profits? They don't NEED those subsidies to survive. Renewables don't either, but it is in our best interest to get renewables on their feet as fast as possible if we want to get away from foreign oil. It makes no sense to me to not support a fledgling industry and instead give billions to an industry that is sitting on record profits, it's a giveaway.
Senate Republicans have also blocked a House bill that was passed earlier this week that would pay for, or at least partially pay for, a one year patch on the AMT. It is estimated that the House will have no choice but to pass the Senate version of the bill, which will essentially add between $60 and $70 billion dollars to the national credit card. They continue to say that it does not need to be paid for, especially with a massive tax hike, but Republican budgets and the White House budget include AMT revenue, INCREASING for the next several years, which means they are including the same money they claim was never intended to be included in their budgets, and it does need to be paid for.
I know this comes off as an anti-Republican post, but that's how I feel, and I'd welcome an opposing viewpoint. I won't attach any motive to their actions, because I don't know what that motive might be, but I think their actions are wrong and irresponsible, and come at odds with some of their rhetoric.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know this comes off as an anti-Republican post, but that's how I feel
I would say the vast majority of your posts are definitely anti-Republican done intentionally. Why would this post be any different?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Proponents are saying the CAFE standards increase is historic and impressive, but I am personally extremely disappointed in Congressional Republicans.
quote: But Democratic leaders were stymied over disagreement on the auto fuel efficiency issues as Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, insisted on some provisions to ease the transition for automakers.
quote:Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who strongly opposed the 35 mpg requirement when it passed the Senate in June, endorsed Friday's compromise.
If you have a substantive complaint, feel free to bring it up, as Dagonee did. I ended up feeling I was wrong in that instance and I changed what I said as a result of it. When you say "intentionally," if you mean I'm out to smear Republicans you are most certainly wrong. On these issues I of course disagree with Republicans because I think their policies are wrong for the country, most of which, in this thread, that pertains to the AMT fix and the Energy Bill. But if you think I haven't also been on the Democrats' case in this thread as well, then you haven't read the whole thing.
I'm not sure I get the point of your second post there. What I was saying is that CAFE upgrades are nice and all, but increasing them is LONG overdue. To me that wasn't historic, it was righting a long overdue wrong. Levin/Dingell are from Michigan, so of course they're going to be incredibly critical of a bill that specifically targets the auto industry. But Dingell himself, a long time champion and defender of the auto industry, has been pushing increases in CAFE, he just wanted to make sure they weren't slammed with it, but had a chance to ease into it. And look at Levin, he opposed it before but agreed to a compromise. In the end, the only Democrat to vote against the Energy Bill was Mary Landreiu of Louisiana. Every other Democrat voted for it, and all but 10 (I think) Republicans voted against it, in the Senate, to say nothing of the almost 200 Republicans who voted against it in the House. The votes were laregely along party lines.
If I am to understand you, you think, in this specific instance, that I'm singling out Republicans when Democrats are just as guilty, yes? Perhaps this post has explained why I think you're wrong? Over and above CAFE, the Energy Bill should have included strong incentives and a package to bolster the renewable energy industry. Republicans are the ones who got that important piece of legislation stripped away, not Democrats. I'm not disappointed in Democrats (well, yeah I am, but specifically on this bill I'm not) because at the end of the day they tried hard, voted for it consistantly and only lost because of Republicans.
If you were trying to be ironic in your link title, "Democrats fight hither CAFE standards," then you might have a point. I'll keep an eye on my link descriptions, but I don't think I've said anything as directly misleading as THAT yet.
If you have something specific, a specific post or like that you want me to substantively address, shoot, because I will. I'm not Anti-Republican by nature, no more than I'm Pro-Democrat by nature. I'm an Independent, with my own views for what is right for the country, and I'll swat at either side when I think they are wrong, just as I have in this thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think a major issue with this case will be this:
quote:Kennedy did not say why he was ordering the hearing or what he planned to ask. Even if the judge accepts the argument that the government did not violate his order, he still could raise questions about obstruction or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."
The government's argument is this:
quote:In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The Justice Department argued that the videos weren't covered by the order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Their argument doesn't seem to cover what the first quote mentions. Maybe Dagonee could clear that up a bit, or shed some light on it, if he happens to wander into this thread.
Featured Article You may not have noticed, but the Energy Bill will make the incandescents we buy today more or less illegal in 4 to 12 years. By 2020, all bulbs must be 70% more efficient than they are now. CFLs already meet that standard, and GE is saying they will have an incandescent (the HEI (High Efficiency Incandescent), it's been talked about in the Green Energy Thread) that meets those standards. LEDs will likely be a consumer product by then as well. Between 2012 and 2014, starting with 100 watt bulbs and working down to 40 watts, bulbs must be 25% to 30% more efficient than right now, and then in 2020 the full effect will take hold. The benefits?
quote:The new rules will save consumers $40 billion in energy and other costs from 2012 to 2030, avoid construction of 14 coal-fired power plants, and cut global-warming emissions by at least 51 million tons of carbon annually, ACEEE says.
The ACEEE is the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
The Senate has also passed the Farm Bill (from Congress.org)
quote:On Friday the Senate passed the 2008 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) by a vote of 79-14. Among other things, the bill includes subsidies for several crops and gives money to renewable energy and conservation efforts. It would ban federal payments to anyone who does not earn at least two-thirds of their income from farming. It requires that meat and seafood products have country-of-origin labeling. An amendment prohibiting large growers from receiving federal payments did not pass.
The last mentioned amendment was a big fight in the Senate. Many want to limit the amount of subsidies given out, in the midst of record profits, subsidies, which were originally designed to help farmers when crops failed, to make sure they didn't suffer too badly, are now paid out by the billions to major corporations and agro businesses. The amendment was aimed at limiting total payouts and slowly lowering that number to less than $100,000 per farmer (I think). The Farm Bill will have no limits on subsidy payouts now (with the exception of the 2/3rds provision mentioned above).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
