Today in Washington D. C. - May 9, 2008
In the Senate: The Senate is not in session today! Will reconvene Monday at 2 PM. The next votes are scheduled for Tuesday are on the energy amendments to the flood insurance bill (S. 2284), the GOP proposal, and a Democrat amendment to halt the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both amendments will require 60 votes for adoption. Later, the Senate will vote on final passage of the flood insurance bill. Yesterday, the Senate adopted the Dodd substitute amendment to the bill.
In the House: Democrat leaders were forced to postpone floor consideration of their supplemental war funding bill after Blue Dogs threatened to scuttle it over billions in new entitlement spending that is not offset. Democrats are doing a wonderful job criticizing themselves, but one has to marvel at members of a group that wants to cut off funding for the war accusing others of not being sufficiently concerned with the welfare of U.S. troops.
The disarray in the House forced Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) to postpone a markup on the supplemental bill he’d scheduled yesterday. Apparently displeased at this, Byrd said in a statement, “My patience is growing thin. I am putting my colleagues in both the House and Senate on notice that whether the House acts or not next week, the Senate Appropriations Committee will move forward with a markup.”
The Democrats' mismanage the war funding bill has been a spectacle this week. They have no one to blame but themselves, though, as the whole convoluted exercise has been an attempt to mollify members who don’t want to vote for war funding and are clamoring for billions in domestic spending. Passing a clean supplemental bill that simply funds the troops would be faster and probably better for everyone involved.
From Senate & News Sources: Senate Democrats’ energy plan garnered more criticism today, and not just from fellow Democrats. Investor’s Business Daily has a scathing editorial today discussing the folly of Democrats’ proposal for a windfall profits tax and their unrealistic ideas about “price gouging.” IBD writes: “As any student who's taken Econ 101 at the local junior college can tell you, higher taxes don't encourage production; they discourage it.” Another criticism leveled by the IBD editorial is that Democrats are looking to return to failed 1970’s energy policies. Indeed, a number of the Democrats’ ideas are particularly stale, reaching all the way back to 1974. National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg also takes Democrats to task in his column and exposes the absurdity of politicians deciding for themselves just what profits are “reasonable.”
Tags: Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy, military funding, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
In the House: Democrat leaders were forced to postpone floor consideration of their supplemental war funding bill after Blue Dogs threatened to scuttle it over billions in new entitlement spending that is not offset. Democrats are doing a wonderful job criticizing themselves, but one has to marvel at members of a group that wants to cut off funding for the war accusing others of not being sufficiently concerned with the welfare of U.S. troops.
The disarray in the House forced Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) to postpone a markup on the supplemental bill he’d scheduled yesterday. Apparently displeased at this, Byrd said in a statement, “My patience is growing thin. I am putting my colleagues in both the House and Senate on notice that whether the House acts or not next week, the Senate Appropriations Committee will move forward with a markup.”
The Democrats' mismanage the war funding bill has been a spectacle this week. They have no one to blame but themselves, though, as the whole convoluted exercise has been an attempt to mollify members who don’t want to vote for war funding and are clamoring for billions in domestic spending. Passing a clean supplemental bill that simply funds the troops would be faster and probably better for everyone involved.
From Senate & News Sources: Senate Democrats’ energy plan garnered more criticism today, and not just from fellow Democrats. Investor’s Business Daily has a scathing editorial today discussing the folly of Democrats’ proposal for a windfall profits tax and their unrealistic ideas about “price gouging.” IBD writes: “As any student who's taken Econ 101 at the local junior college can tell you, higher taxes don't encourage production; they discourage it.” Another criticism leveled by the IBD editorial is that Democrats are looking to return to failed 1970’s energy policies. Indeed, a number of the Democrats’ ideas are particularly stale, reaching all the way back to 1974. National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg also takes Democrats to task in his column and exposes the absurdity of politicians deciding for themselves just what profits are “reasonable.”
Tags: Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy, military funding, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 10:08 AM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home