KagroX’s Actions

 
Subscribe

KagroX’s Letters to Congress

No letters to Congress written yet.

KagroX’s Comments

KagroX 08/25/2010 5:28am

It doesn’t take 67 votes to change Senate rules. It takes 67 votes to end a filibuster of a rules change. The change itself requires only a simple majority, as with almost everything else in the Senate.

KagroX 03/17/2010 4:18am

The Republican controlled House in 2003 used a self-executing rule to pass an $82 billion tax package, H.R. 1380, in the 108th Congress. The rule passed by the relatively narrow margin of 224-201, with 9 Republicans voting no, 9 Democrats voting yes, and 10 Members not voting. That was pretty close, and on a fairly major piece of legislation that by some estimates would cost $1 trillion over 20 years.

KagroX 09/24/2009 3:47am

I object to the use of the public power to mandate payments from individuals that can’t possibly have a public end.

It’s the fact that those who comply with the mandate have literally no choice but to make payments — at the direction of the federal government — to a private actor that bothers me most. That’s no longer a market, for one thing. So the idea that this scheme somehow retains the benefits of the free market is ridiculous.

But I see the necessity of a public option (or alternatively, I suppose, such close and strict regulation that private insurers are in effect nationalized) as a safety valve against the mandate becoming a system of private taxation, sanctioned by the state.

If there are savings to be had by making the risk pool universal, but it can’t be made universal without leveraging federal authority, why should those savings be captured by the private insurers? Let the entity that created them take the savings.

KagroX 09/24/2009 3:38am

Is that really a fair set-up, you think — to set up the “But they’re not, and they won’t” line — using a link to an article that says right in the title, “They’ll never do it”?

KagroX 04/02/2009 3:36am

“Cleared of all charges” isn’t exactly right. The charges were dropped, but there was never any “not guilty” verdict. They’re not the same thing.

KagroX 03/30/2009 7:56am

We are also aware of what Rep. Foxx said about it during the debate, yes? That it “codifies current regulations with regard to activities and organizations ineligible for grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service and AmeriCorps volunteers.”

In other words, it’s how national service volunteer activities are already regulated, and still will be even in the absence of this bill.

Were they already spinning and you completely missed it for years and years on end? Or are you chasing shadows?

Comm_reply
KagroX 03/29/2009 8:31am

Who voted for it: 174 House Republicans, 144 House Democrats. “Impeach” them all? Fine. That leaves 105 Democrats, and presumably the 4 Republicans who were absent, and the four Democrats also absent. 109-4? OK, fine.

KagroX 03/29/2009 8:28am

We’re all aware that the current language of Sec. 1304 was inserted by House Republicans on a motion to recommit, yes? It was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and received the unanimous vote of all House Republicans present.

Comm_reply
KagroX 03/29/2009 8:24am

You are aware, of course, that Amendment #49 was in fact the Republican motion to recommit this bill, yes? That is, that it was offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and was unanimously supported by House Republicans?

Sneaky, indeed!

Comm_reply
KagroX 03/29/2009 8:17am

Yeah. Maybe we should remove this unpopular provision and let it have a stand-alone vote. “Hmmm.”

What a wacky concept! You’ve discovered the ultimate conspiracy theory: A separate vote for this provision. Yikes! Alert the media!


Number of Comments: 10
Average Comment Rating (0-10): 5.11428571428571
Comments Per Day: 0.00

KagroX’s Supported Bills

No supported bills yet.


KagroX’s Opposed Bills

No opposed bills yet. You can vote "nay" at the top of any bill's page.