McConnell tries to tamp Senate GOP revolt over spending levels

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is trying to contain a GOP rebellion on spending levels, a struggle that has major implications for budget negotiations this fall.

Nineteen Republicans voted Tuesday to advance a motion to begin debate on a bill funding the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, even though McConnell says the bill will bust the spending cap set by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA).

The Republicans who voted yes include four lawmakers who voted to approve the bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, even though McConnell explicitly urged them not to break the BCA’s spending levels.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pounced on Tuesday’s vote to claim leverage in the spending fight that is heating up ahead of a fall deadline.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/313041-mcconnell-tries-to-tamp-a... 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Views: 475

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Walt -In some states, that would NOT work; look at my state (Colorado) for example.  We have an overwhelmingly liberal legislature, so every senator, from this state would be a "dimwit liberal"!

June said: "[Colorado has] an overwhelmingly liberal legislature, so every senator, from this state would be a 'dimwit liberal'!"

And the same would be true of California, New York, Illinois, and others. But the point isn't to get conservatives in the Senate but rather to make the Senate respond to STATE interests as opposed to STATE VOTER interests.

For example in farm states, the state voters are generally concentrated in cities that know and care little about farming. Since the VOTERS now elect both (U.S.) Representatives and Senators, neither house sees farming in that state as a priority. But with state legislators generally selected by the state's counties, letting the legislatures choose the (U.S.) Senators would give a more nearly statewide view of things.

A second benefit would be that the U.S. Senate would be composed of people who had already been tested in their state's political system. It would give us a stronger farm club for higher office. Just to take a current example: Did Illinois Senator Barrack Obama have the strength and respect in the state's legislature to make him their choice for the U.S. Senate? Nope -- he was invisible there, just as he was in the U.S. Senate, later on.
Thanks, Bill. I've been meaning to research why the 17th amendment happened and that makes sense.

However it doesn't change my view that the 17th should be repealled. Soros or Gates could indeed buy state legislators so they'd pick the (U.S.) Senator they desired. But this is a STATE problem: Soros et al can buy all kinds of things now, including U.S. Senators when they're candidates.

The Humane Society of the U.S. routinely invests in both party candidates for high state offices and they do even more for people who are cooperative -- they find other big donors, they have a PAC, and they do endorsements. They have paid trolls in every significant venue, they have a steady feed of press releases ... I mention HSUS because that's the situation for which I know details; I expect the REALLY big money operations do even more.

A lawmaker who goes against HSUS finds his local paper running letters to the editor "Why does Assemblyman Snurd hate dogs?" Alinsky rule 12? 13? Something like that.

In this environment I don't see the possibility of a corrupt state legislature selection process (for the state's senator) as a significant problem. The goal is a U.S. Senator who represents STATE (as opposed to STATE VOTER) interests; I think buying enough votes to swing the choice to someone who didn't represent state concerns would be difficult.

VOTERS are easily swayed against state interests. A legislature that has to pick one of its own to got to Washington seems harder.

Mr. Hutchens, I concur with your response.

Cute cartoon in the article that leads this discussion. Let's see: Say the kid starts at age 18 mos. (he's walking) and works until he's 21-1/2 or 20 years. He owed at birth $50,000 approximately of the national debt. So if he's paid $2500/year more than his additional expenses (for working rather that just being a kid) he could pay off his share by the time he's an adult.

So the answer to $16-some trillion in debt is child labor. Of course that gives us a new question: When will he find time to go to school? But maybe we can work out some classes during his breaks at work or something.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘The Real Second Amendment Isn’t Absolute

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted Saturday there is a “real” Second Amendment and an “imaginary” one and he believes the real one is “not absolute.”

Murphy, “I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”

The statement was a precursor to his call for banning “assault rifles” in the wake of the Santa Fe High School shooting, even though “assault rifles” were not used in the attack.

Murphy said the “real 2nd Amendment…allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.”

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) said the Santa Fe High School attackers used a .38 revolver and a shotgun to carry out his heinous acts. Therefore, a ban on “assault rifles” would have done nothing to prevent the attack from occurring or the tragic loss of life from taking place.

It should be noted that Saturday was not the first time Sen. Murphy called the essence of the Second Amendment into question. On August 6, 2013, Breitbart News reported that Murphy told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”

Murphy did not grapple with the words, “Shall not be infringed.”

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service