Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 1/2/2007 7:41:35 AM EDT
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784_pf.html

Didn't take them long to show their true colors.

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

By Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A01

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within hours of taking the oath of office on Thursday. The first legislation will focus on the behavior of lawmakers, banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to special spending directives and to certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker or the lawmaker's spouse. That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule.

Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.

"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."

But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House.

"It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "It's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation."

In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of their razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Those same Democrats, who campaigned on a pledge of more openness in government, will kick off the new Congress with a closed meeting of all senators in the Capitol. Manley said the point of the meeting is to figure out ways both parties can work together.

In the House, Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Rules Committee, said she intends to bring openness to a committee that used to meet in the middle of the night. In the new Congress, the panel -- which sets the terms of debate on the House floor -- will convene at 10 a.m. before a roomful of reporters.

"It's going to be open," Slaughter said of the process. "Everybody will have an opportunity to participate."

At the same time, she added, the majority would grant Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once it reaches the floor. "We intend to allow some of their amendments, not all of them," Slaughter said.

For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.

"We're going to make an impression one way or the other," said one Democratic leadership aide. "If it's not positive, we'll be out in two years."

House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records.

"We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies.

Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group.

"If they've got ideas that will make our legislation better, we ought to consider that," said Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-Fla.), leader of the Blue Dogs. "But if their idea is to try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've been doing for the past six years, and it's all wrong."

To keep her sometimes-fractious coalition together, Pelosi has been distributing the spoils of victory across the ideological spectrum, trying to make sure that no group within the Democratic Party feels alienated.

Blue Dogs picked up some plum committee assignments, with Jim Matheson (Utah) landing a spot on Energy and Commerce and A.B. "Ben" Chandler (Ky.) getting an Appropriations seat. At the same time, members of Black and Hispanic caucuses obtained spots on these panels, as Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) was given a seat on Appropriations and Artur Davis (Ala.) took the place of Democrat William J. Jefferson (La.) on Ways and Means.

Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process.

"If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Rutgers's Baker. "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type."

"The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very, very strong," he added. "It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal."
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:42:43 AM EDT
[#1]
AWB 2

here we come


Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:43:45 AM EDT
[#2]

Quoted:

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
."


duh

remember, bipartisanship is only bad if the republicans do it
the evil party understands how politcs work. (those with the gold make the rules)
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:43:54 AM EDT
[#3]
The people voted for Socialism, they got it.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:45:02 AM EDT
[#4]

Quoted:
AWB 2

here we come


Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:46:34 AM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.


The Reps have largely ignored the Dems for the last 8 years; why should the Dems not equivocate?
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:48:53 AM EDT
[#6]
The Democrat/Socialist/MSM/Communist party of this country does not give a shit if conservative Americans are politically represented.

If Republicans in leadership would have the balls to stand up to these POS maybe things would change , but they seem content to just sit back and let them fuck us while they take kickbacks and practice all forms of corruption.

Maybe when this shit start hurting peoples bottom line these shit heels will all get theirs.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:52:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Look at my surprised face ----->
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 8:02:17 AM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.


The Reps have largely ignored the Dems for the last 8 years; why should the Dems not equivocate?


The Republicans ignored the democrats for 8 years for the same reason I do.  Because they are dangerous, Socialist, idiots.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 8:04:48 AM EDT
[#9]
We got the gubment' we deserve  
Fooking FUBAR til 08' (maybe)
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 8:55:13 AM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.


The Reps have largely ignored the Dems for the last 8 years; why should the Dems not equivocate?

A)  That's total bullshit.
and 2) the word is reciprocate, DUmmie, not "equivocate" [which by the way is all the Treasoncrats EVER do - EQUIVOCATE]
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:43:46 PM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.


The Reps have largely ignored the Dems for the last 8 years; why should the Dems not equivocate?


Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead

Well done Dummie.  "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh".  
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:45:37 PM EDT
[#12]
However, let remember, the good thing is we taught the Republicans a lesson
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:47:43 PM EDT
[#13]


Buy anything and everything you can. Everything but bolt actions and pump/Over-under/SxS shotguns will be attacked mercilessly.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:47:48 PM EDT
[#14]
They're just doing what they were elected to do. The people wanted Democrats, and by God they got them.

I wish we Republicans did the same when we had the chance. No, we "compromised". We decided to "reach out" and "work together". Bah. Fat lot of good that did.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:49:35 PM EDT
[#15]
i'll be sure to let you all know the minute my way of life goes to shit.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:52:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:53:59 PM EDT
[#17]
I predict at least one full-blown fistfight will occur on the House or Senate floor in the next two years.   And it will be between two democrats,  one moderate and one a hardcore liberal.




The democrats might as well do all they can, while they can, because they've only got a two
year window of opportunity to fuck this country over and sell us off as slaves to communists
as has been their plan for some time now.    Come 2009,  we'll be back and in shape to
kick some democratic asses like they've never been kicked before.


CJ
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:54:40 PM EDT
[#18]
This is going to bite them in the ass.

The Senate is still 49-50 until the almost dead guy either croaks or finally steps down. He won't be back for this session. You're going to have to have a major concensus to pass anything.

I forsee a whole lot of nothing going on for the next two years.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:55:42 PM EDT
[#19]

Quoted:
This is going to bite them in the ass.

The Senate is still 49-50 until the almost dead guy either croaks or finally steps down. He won't be back for this session. You're going to have to have a major concensus to pass anything.

I forsee a whole lot of nothing going on for the next two years.


Which is real good! (Whole lot of nothing)


Government can only expand it never contracts


Pray for gridlock
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:56:58 PM EDT
[#20]
To the winner the spoils.

Like it or now, the Republicans screwed the pooch and now we'll all pay the price.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:57:13 PM EDT
[#21]

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?

The minimum wage thing bugs the piss out of me, but most jobs pay more than that as it is, so I doubt it will really affect things as bad as it otherwise would have. I know that some union wages used the minimum wage as an index, but I'm not sure if it'll end up being that devestating.

Like you said, it could be worse. If this is what they've got on their plate...fine. Could be worse.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:59:04 PM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
However, let remember, the good thing is we taught the Republicans a lesson




Damn skippy!

And now the dems will go after big oil-99 cent gas by July 4th!!!WOO-HOO!\


Let the good times roll....................
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:01:52 PM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?


Yeah, and IMO of all the thing the gov't spends its money on, education and life-saving research are closer to the top of the list.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:02:47 PM EDT
[#24]

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.
Yeah the government isn't spending NEARLY enough money.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:05:28 PM EDT
[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?

The minimum wage thing bugs the piss out of me, but most jobs pay more than that as it is, so I doubt it will really affect things as bad as it otherwise would have. I know that some union wages used the minimum wage as an index, but I'm not sure if it'll end up being that devestating.

Like you said, it could be worse. If this is what they've got on their plate...fine. Could be worse.


I disagree student loans are a good thing.  The .gov pays the interest while the student is in school after school the student pay the interest while paying off the loans.

1) Min cost to the .gov
 
2) College grads make more and pay more in taxes offsetting the minimal cost of item 1.

3) The lenders make money in the interest on the loan.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:06:28 PM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?


Yeah, and IMO of all the thing the gov't spends its money on, education and life-saving research are closer to the top of the list.


Well, if you're gonna hold a gun to my head and tax me (say amen if you can't opt out without going to jail), I suppose those two are as worthy as they come. This assumes of course, that spending will be reined in elsewhere. Like you said, it could be worse.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:06:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Not a suprise. The GOP should have done the same thing when they had the chance.

How does the saying go?
"Either lead, follow, or get out of the way."
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:08:44 PM EDT
[#28]
I hope that the Republicans remember the "cloture vote in lieu of simple majority vote" trick when the time comes...
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:09:48 PM EDT
[#29]
but but but the country spoke!!!
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:14:18 PM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?

The minimum wage thing bugs the piss out of me, but most jobs pay more than that as it is, so I doubt it will really affect things as bad as it otherwise would have. I know that some union wages used the minimum wage as an index, but I'm not sure if it'll end up being that devestating.

Like you said, it could be worse. If this is what they've got on their plate...fine. Could be worse.




It's not going to affect the bigger businesses,it's going to affect all the small mom and pop type businesses.Burger King can add 10 cents to a hamburg to make up the difference-what is the little burger joint/deli gonna do?
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:17:26 PM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?


Yeah, and IMO of all the thing the gov't spends its money on, education and life-saving research are closer to the top of the list.


Well, if you're gonna hold a gun to my head and tax me (say amen if you can't opt out without going to jail), I suppose those two are as worthy as they come. This assumes of course, that spending will be reined in elsewhere. Like you said, it could be worse.


How about this one that is overlooked

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:21:29 PM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is going to bite them in the ass.

The Senate is still 49-50 until the almost dead guy either croaks or finally steps down. He won't be back for this session. You're going to have to have a major concensus to pass anything.

I forsee a whole lot of nothing going on for the next two years.


Which is real good! (Whole lot of nothing)


Government can only expand it never contracts


Pray for gridlock


+1 Best possible scenario.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:22:58 PM EDT
[#33]
What did you expect? This was a given. They way they have been crying and whining they have to do this. Personally I am glad they are, this ought to show the country just who they put into office. I also believe this increases the chance of a republican becoming the next president.
As for AWB II, I dunno but I am buying all sorts of stuff right now.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:24:08 PM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well it could be worse.  I personally welcome lower student loan rates and stem cell research moneys.


I never cared much for the idea of the federal government lending money to students, or even funding research (private firms can do this on their own). But then the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is but a few shades of grey, isn't it?

The minimum wage thing bugs the piss out of me, but most jobs pay more than that as it is, so I doubt it will really affect things as bad as it otherwise would have. I know that some union wages used the minimum wage as an index, but I'm not sure if it'll end up being that devestating.

Like you said, it could be worse. If this is what they've got on their plate...fine. Could be worse.




It's not going to affect the bigger businesses,it's going to affect all the small mom and pop type businesses.Burger King can add 10 cents to a hamburg to make up the difference-what is the little burger joint/deli gonna do?


Depends. Little 'ol privately held In & Out Burger pays their employees pretty good, considering. Way back in '99, I knew a guy who worked there less than a year making $8/hr in Modesto California. I'm sure it's even better now. Here locally, pizza delivery drivers at Marcos Pizza (very small local chain, not even a franchise) start out at $10/hr plus tips (according to their ads).

Don't get me wrong. If I were Supreme Ruler, I'd axe the minimum wage entirely. Everybody says "Well, then some people would only make $1/hr!!". I say if that were true, then jobs around here that are traditionally seen as minimum wwage jobs would only pay minimum wage. And yet we find that they are paying more than minimum wage, because that's what the market thinks these people are worth.

If you're looking for a silver lining, it's that the minimum wage will now move closer to what the market has already decided, for the most part. Some folks are geting a "raise", but it's a pretty insignificant number of employees.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:33:59 PM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:
However, let remember, the good thing is we taught the Republicans a lesson


For 6 years the Republicans were in control saying "we will get it done" and "trust us".  Well after 6 years of the Republicans not getting much done the Nation got pissed an booted them.  

Look at how the Dems are proceeding, they promise to act quick on many things in the first 100 hours and they are forcing Congress to actually work full work weeks to do so.  They are trying to show in every way possible that are "trying to get things done".  Seeing that they are beaten the article mentions that the Republicans have come up with their own agenda for the first 100.  WTF, why couldn't the Republicans come up with a workable agenda when they were in power so they could have actually gotten things done.  The Republicans got their asses handed to them by their own doing, well actually by their lack of doing.  Now the Democrats are going to walk all over them and rub it in.  
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top