PDA

View Full Version : BREAKING: Democrats fold to Republicans on Omnibus spending bill!




malkusm
12-16-2010, 07:15 PM
From the Facebook page of Sen. Jim DeMint:

"Harry Reid finally admitted he didn't have the votes to pass the pork-filled omnibus. Too embarrassed to read their own bill, Democrats agreed to a short-term CR, funding government at current levels without earmarks."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_V7Gvx3V-8VE/TObP8ZwE11I/AAAAAAAAAHo/4f60xyNo0W0/s1600/Victory.jpg

malkusm
12-16-2010, 07:18 PM
ARTICLE: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/16/reid-ditches-omnibus-says-he-n


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not file cloture on the $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, saying he doesn not have the votes. Instead, he said he would work with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded for the short term.

Reid said he initially had agreements from 9 Republicans to vote for the bill, but that those votes have since evaporated. Brandishing a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution, Reid defended earmarks, saying it's one way to preserve the checks and balances put in place by the founders and that ending the practice would transfer too much power to the executive.

He also said he would file cloture on the DREAM Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal, setting up votes for Saturday.

malkusm
12-16-2010, 07:20 PM
This also means that S.510 (the FDA overhaul of "food safety") is DEAD!!!! (for now...)

sailingaway
12-16-2010, 07:24 PM
Saw that -- terrific!

rprprs
12-16-2010, 07:24 PM
I defer to the picture in the OP. :D

jmdrake
12-16-2010, 07:25 PM
ARTICLE: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/16/reid-ditches-omnibus-says-he-n


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not file cloture on the $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, saying he doesn not have the votes. Instead, he said he would work with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded for the short term.

Reid said he initially had agreements from 9 Republicans to vote for the bill, but that those votes have since evaporated. Brandishing a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution, Reid defended earmarks, saying it's one way to preserve the checks and balances put in place by the founders and that ending the practice would transfer too much power to the executive.

He also said he would file cloture on the DREAM Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal, setting up votes for Saturday.



LOL @ Harry Reid with a pocket constitution.

sailingaway
12-16-2010, 07:27 PM
LOL @ Harry Reid with a pocket constitution.

Everyone is stealing that from Ron. But only RON votes AGAINST the spending, so can never be accused of having sold his vote.

dailyteaparty
12-16-2010, 07:38 PM
Thanks! I Think you will like this: http://dailyteaparty.com/?p=3475

Inkblots
12-16-2010, 07:39 PM
Woo hoo!

I'm glad Reid blinked, but it's a shame we couldn't shut the Federal government down for a few days, first.

PeacePlan
12-16-2010, 07:41 PM
Looks like the Dream Act will get voted on by Saturday................

rprprs
12-16-2010, 07:46 PM
Reid said he initially had agreements from 9 Republicans to vote for the bill, but that those votes have since evaporated.

Who were they... and why did they fold?

oyarde
12-16-2010, 07:49 PM
Who were they... and why did they fold?

Without even looking , I will guess two from Maine ??

Pericles
12-16-2010, 07:57 PM
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/q-s/reddawn-12.jpg

Wolverines!

GunnyFreedom
12-16-2010, 08:20 PM
Somehow I think they will find a way to rescue S.510 :(

AuH20
12-16-2010, 08:49 PM
Grassroots thwarted this. 9 unnamed republican senators told Reid they'd personally vote for it in a different political climate, but didn't feel like jeopardizing their seat!! How awesome is that?

keh10
12-16-2010, 10:12 PM
Reid defended earmarks, saying it's one way to preserve the checks and balances put in place by the founders and that ending the practice would transfer too much power to the executive.

There is some truth to those words.

tangent4ronpaul
12-16-2010, 10:51 PM
This also means that S.510 (the FDA overhaul of "food safety") is DEAD!!!! (for now...)

w00t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Romulus
12-16-2010, 11:33 PM
Who were they... and why did they fold?

Snow, Brown...

FSP-Rebel
12-16-2010, 11:38 PM
Mark Levin held an official "Levin surge" early last night and this was the target of the situation, hence the fold. I didn't even get a chance to speak (since he's delayed in my region) my piece and already Mark and Co had the bill on ice.. Also, Mark was talking about how Rand is the real deal, unlike Toomey.

cswake
12-17-2010, 10:22 AM
LOL @ Harry Reid with a pocket constitution.

Even better, it was provided by CATO! http://www.cato.org/


With more than 3 million copies in print of the Cato Institute's highly popular pocket edition of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, you never know where one may suddenly appear. A case in point is pictured above. Discussing the defeat last night of the massive $1.1 trillion "omnibus" spending bill in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid suddenly held up a copy of Cato's Pocket Constitution.

Bruce
12-17-2010, 12:02 PM
Reid defended earmarks, saying it's one way to preserve the checks and balances put in place by the founders and that ending the practice would transfer too much power to the executive.

There is some truth to those words.

Ron Paul has made the exact same point as Reid does here, from a March 2009 speech (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r111:H10MR9-0061:):


I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding here among the Members as to exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It's very popular today to condemn earmarks, and even hold up legislation because of this.

The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget, you would remove 1 percent of the budget. So there's not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks actually, you don't even save the 1 percent because you don't save any money.

What is done is, those earmarks are removed, and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch. So, in many ways, what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities, because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That is our job. We are supposed to tell the people how we are spending the money, not to just deliver it in a lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it, and then it's dealt with behind the scenes.

Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks, there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency, and we know exactly where the money is being spent.

The big issue is the spending. If you don't like the spending, vote against the bill. But the principle of earmarking is something that we have to think about, because we are just further undermining the responsibilities that we have here in the Congress.

If we want to get things under control, it won't be because we vote against an earmark and make a big deal of attacking earmarks because it doesn't address the subject. In reality, what we need are more earmarks.