Conservative rebels tank McCarthy's funding bill, raising odds of a shutdown
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 2 years ago • 244 commentsBy: Scott Wong, Sahil Kapur, Kyle Stewart and Rebecca Kaplan
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — A band of conservative rebels on Friday revolted and blocked House Republicans' short-term funding bill to keep the government open, delivering a political blow to Speaker Kevin McCarthy and likely cementing the chances of a painful government shutdown that is less than 48 hours away.
Twenty-one rebels, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a conservative bomb-thrower and a top Donald Trump ally, voted Friday afternoon to scuttle the 30-day funding bill, leaving Republicans without a game plan to avert a shutdown.
The vote failed, 198-232.
The hard-liners say they are unconcerned if the government shuts down, as it appears likely to do at 12:01 a.m. Sunday. They want the House to pass all 12 appropriations bills, with steep spending cuts, then negotiate funding with the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Moderate Republicans lashed out with fury at the conservatives who voted down the funding bill, with specific criticism reserved for Gaetz, whom they accused of fomenting chaos to oust McCarthy.
"Unfortunately, a handful of people, and in particular a party of one, Matt Gaetz, has chosen to put his own agenda, his own personal agenda, above all else," Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is facing a tough reelection bid next year, said after the vote.
"There is only one person to blame for any potential government shutdown, and that is Matt Gaetz," he added. "He's not a conservative Republican; he's a charlatan."
Gaetz later tweeted at Lawler: "20 other Republicans voted with me. And, BE BEST, Mike!"
In a bid to reset, House Republicans huddled behind closed doors in the Capitol basementfor nearly three hours Friday to try to hash out their differences. But they emerged from that meeting without consensus on how to move forward and keep the government open.
The House will return for a rare Saturday session, but it's unclear what they will vote on. McCarthy said after the meeting he's now eyeing a clean funding bill — with no Ukraine aid — that would originate in the House, but added that Democrats likely would not support it.
"There are a lot of personalities at play here, and multiple strategic objectives. When you have multiple objectives, you're never going to get everyone on board," a frustrated Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said as she left the room.
"And I will venture to say that there are members who don't care whether the government stays open or shuts down."
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy addresses journalists at the Capitol on Thursday.Tom Brenner / The Washington Post via Getty Images file
A day earlier, McCarthy had rallied his troops behind the GOP's stopgap funding bill, saying a shutdown would "weaken" the GOP's negotiating position and hand the White House and the Senate more leverage. McCarthy's CR included across-the-board spending cuts, border security provisions and would have funded the government through Oct. 31, to buy Republicans more time to pass their appropriations bills.
"I think the failure to move something this afternoon clearly puts the advantage back on the Senate bill," said Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., a top appropriator, referring to the Senate's 45-day CR, which lacks the spending cuts and border funding conservatives are pushing for.
The embarrassing failure of the GOP measure once again highlights the dilemma for McCarthy as his hard-liners strongly oppose a short-term bill even if it includes conservative priorities. It leaves Congress on a path to a shutdown, with no apparent offramp to avoiding it — or to quickly reopen the government.
A handful of GOP defections were always expected, but the 21 no votes were seen as a staggering number. The Republicans voting down McCarthy's CR included: Gaetz and Reps. Andy Biggs, Eli Crane and Paul Gosar, all of Arizona; Lauren Boebert and Ken Buck, both of Colorado; Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia; Tim Burchett and Andy Ogles, both of Tennessee; Alex Mooney, who is running for Senate in West Virginia; Matt Rosendale, who is running for Senate in Montana; and Nancy Mace, who represents a swing district in South Carolina.
"We're in the 9th inning. We're playing baseball. It's 7 o'clock at night, the sun's going down and we don't have lights. So now let's panic, and that's what we've done here," said Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, one of the 21 defectors who slammed leadership for waiting to pass funding bills at the deadline. "We've waited too damn long."
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had trashed the GOP stopgap bill, which all Democrats voted against.
"Extreme House Republicans are now tripling down on their demands to eviscerate programs millions of hardworking families count on—proposing a devastating 30% cut to law enforcement, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, and more," she said in a statement. "They are breaking their word, abandoning the bipartisan deal that two-thirds of them voted for just four months ago, and marching our country toward an Extreme Republican Shutdown that will damage our economy and national security."
The White House is endorsing the Senate stopgap bill that continues funding at existing levels through Nov. 17 and adds some $6 billion in aid to Ukraine and another $6 billion in disaster relief.
"The path forward to fund the government has been laid out by the Senate with bipartisan support—House Republicans just need to take it," Jean-Pierre said.
The Republican-led House passed three appropriations bills late Thursday, on entirely or mostly party-line votes. None of them have a chance of passing the Senate or becoming law.
Another obstacle to resolving the dispute is that Democrats — who control the Senate and the White House — are furious with McCarthy for reneging on the two-year budget deal he struck with President Joe Biden earlier this year.
"Last time McCarthy cut a 'deal' with Biden, he double crossed the President within weeks. McCarthy's word is worth nothing right now," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on X.
Tags
Who is online
59 visitors
McCarthy should have known he was making a deal with the devil for his seat. His ass is probably feeling the heat now.
he may have to compromise to affect legislation and hold onto his chair. oh, the horror...
My understanding was that, if he compromises to effect legislation, the MAGA wing will call to vacate the chair. So, if he placates the MAGA wing, he keeps his chair, but gets a fair share of the blame for shutting down the government. If he acts in a bipartisan manner to keep government open, he risks losing his chair.
The GOP seems to have formed a firing squad, circular and inward-facing.
meh, as long as they all pull the trigger at the same time...
I like what gov't shutdowns do to republicans on election day. it puts multiple GOP house seats into play next year. looks like the term "red wave" may have 2 definitions...
Too few people seem to remember that long.
Short term memories are definitely a problem.
Fascist folk can't even remember Hitler.
“circular and inward-facing.”
Cynically backward-facing.
the same people that use the bible and the constitution as cudgels, but have read nor can comprehend either?
The GoP has adopted the worst former antics of the DNC, doubled down on them and now own them outright.
Chaos cares not who She rends to feed Her churlish children ... it's all hamberder to Her.
Once adopted they became the GoP's problem.
I love Beau. He's never nasty, but you can just hear "You're defending her for doing exactly what you say, in your defense, that she shouldn't and wouldn't do, you absolute potato" behind his words.
gee, I thought only rinos voted with democrats??? oh well, just another display of maga hypocrisy...
beau and trae crack me up, although trae delivers with a bit more mocking sarcasm...
[deleted]
Trae cracks me up.
Far right-wing fascism comes with a cost
Doesn’t everything?
Can you define this with coherent examples?
the odds of american patriots shooting at maga-fucks in 2025 just increased...
Pay attention to the next few weeks when the gov't is shut down. That's going to be a glimpse of what it will be like if Trump is elected and dismantles our America and Constitution and replaces it with armed hillbillies in the streets.
Absolutely... and Trump will crash the stock market and initiate WWIII.
What fear mongering....
[deleted]
[Deleted]
You use a birthplace as a slur, do you do the same with some foreigners?
Well, the Biden, Pelosi, Schumer broad brush politics against Republicans seems to have painted the country into a corner. According to Biden's demagoguery, there's no way Democrats can work with Republicans since they're an existential threat to democracy. Biden started another fight that he cannot win.
Tell us again how badly the country fared with Trump in the White House. Remember the Trump government shutdown? Remember the Trump budget cuts? Remember the war Trump started? Comparing the Trump Presidency to the Biden Presidency really doesn't help Democrats.
McCarthy may be saved by an unlikely source:
H ouse Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said on Friday that he would not rule out a bid to force a short-term spending patch onto the House floor – whether Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., allowed it or not.
Jeffries led House Democratic leaders in a press conference just after a group of 21 GOP hardliners helped sink their own party’s short-term spending bill.
House Dem Leader Jeffries floats end-run around McCarthy to avert government shutdown (msn.com)
only fools make deals with trumpsters...
The House Republicans just proposed a CR (Continuing Resolution) to keep the government open for another 45 days. One of their main provisions/demands is A CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE. Think about that. The MAGAs are going to shut down the government unless they get a pay raise.
Their pay ought to be suspended before anybody else's.
I heard an interview with a MAGA Congressman a couple of days ago. The interviewer asked him about all the people, including members of the military, many of whose families survive paycheck to psycheck, who won't get paid if the MAGAs shut the government down. The MAGA's response: "Have you ever heard of back pay?" When the interviewer asked if Congress would still get paid during a shut down, he responded: "Yes, it's in the Constitution." His tone was totally arrogant, which is typical for a MAGA ignoramus.
Would love to see where MAGA is now a political party. Was that one of Congress's latest laws/procedures/regulations/policies??
Who, in Congress, is the "Lead" MAGA? When did they make MAGA the "third" political party?
What exactly is a "MAGA Congressman"? Is this s new party?
Why do far leftists think Make America Great Again is such a triggering slogan?
Apparently, you're unaware that the Republican Party no longer exists and has been replaced by the M.A.G.A. Party. M.A.G.A., of course, is an abbreviation for Moronic Autocratic Gasbags and Assholes. Many of the leaders remain the same.
Cheers!
The best way to Make America Great Again would be for the Trumpist idiots to leave.
Amazing, is it not, that many GOP loyalists go with the name regardless of its meaning? The GOP today is unrecognizable. It is not the party of Ronald Reagan, it is the party of Trump.
Just blows my mind that GOP members cannot seem to comprehend that the GOP is in dire straits.
The GOP is desperately sick.
Only far left communists/socialists would want patriotic, military/country serving people to leave this country. Probably so they can continue making it the shithole this administration has initiated it into becoming.
Why do you want this?
Amazing that far leftists think patriotic Americans would think MAGA means anything other than Make America Great Again.
The GOP is not the party of Trump. The GOP is the party of country loving, patriotic, non leftist treasonous Americans that want nothing but the best for everyone here legally...unlike far leftists who only want socialism where they want the government to take care of them so that they can continue to be lazy little pussies.
I never would have imagined the GOP could get hijacked by a con-man. It is an amazing (while sickening) thing to behold.
First, it seems everyone to your left is a 'far leftist' in your eyes. Makes your comments look ridiculous.
Second, I never mentioned MAGA. I spoke of the GOP.
A demonstrably false declaration for the present.
You speak of long-standing GOP principles. Right now the GOP is Trump's party. Until GOP members catch on to the dire reality of the party and detach from Trump, it will continue to be Trump's party.
What you describe is strong Social Democracy (big benevolent government); that is a variant of Capitalism, not Socialism. Learn the difference.
You labeled G2 a "far left communist / socialist".
Was that your intent ... or do you want to soften your language?
Donald Trump effectively created the concept of "MAGA". Of course there are individual Americans of all political persuasions that would agree with making America great again, but the reality is MAGA is a brand, the brand is owned by Trump and people who show up at Trump events wearing the red hat are part of the Trump cult.
MAGA stands for a devotion to trumpism, which is mainly fueled by white grievance.
Apparently you do not recognize the profound change in the GOP. Does the GOP today look like the GOP of Reagan to you?
Nope. Just those that demonstrate far left tendencies.
"You referenced 7.1.4 which clearly was about MAGA. I am correct in my assessment
"A demonstrably false declaration for the present"
Your opinion, in which, once again...is wrong
"You speak of long-standing GOP principles. "
As they still are, the exact opposite of what the left stands for. Doesn't matter who YOU think the party represents. YOU would be wrong.
"What you describe is strong Social Democracy (Big Benevolent Government);"
Good for you for noticing. I am again correct in my assessment of the left and democratic party.
MAGA is nothing more than a slogan.
A slogan that triggers the left like nothing ever before.
Making America Great is definitely something they DO NOT want.
I replied to a comment and wrote only of the GOP. If you want to whine about MAGA, do so to those who mentioned it.
Such a persuasive rebuttal.
You offer: ' nuh-uh you are wrong' .
Yes, my comment did not suggest the historical GOP principles have changed. The GOP is what changed. As I wrote.
Another witless comeback. Social Democracy is not Socialism, it is a variant of Capitalism. Learn the difference.
And of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the point.
At least you recognize the GOP today is unlike that of Reagan's; that is a start.
Today's GOP has changed so much that it follows and has as its dominant potential nominee by multiple double digits, Trump — a traitor. And Trump is the only PotUS who has attempted to steal a US presidential election by coercion, fraud, conspiracy, lies, unconstitutional acts, inciting his followers, and abuse of influence of his office.
One would have to be blind to not recognize the profound change in the GOP that would be so all in for an abysmal character like Trump who has demonstrated that he will throw the nation and the CotUS under the bus merely to protect his ego.
What happened to the party that would not tolerate such corruption and would seek to toss out their own president (Nixon)?
MAGA came about because Many Americans Got Angry
I just read this thread, and it is getting way too rough for my liking. Everyone knock it off.
I'm not surprised. Look at Gingrich. He was a fraud and a demagogue leading America down the road to neo-fascism, which is embraced by so many on the right.
This. At least as far back as the 90s, the GOP has been following those who have a blatant "rules for thee, but not for me" mindset.
“Many Americans Got Angry”
They found their misguided salvation. An opportunist who tapped into that anger. Forgetting that he represents all we hold abhorrent…devoid of personal responsibility, blatant ignorance of the facts, blaming everything, everyone, every single time in an attempt to justify his behavior.
Angry? Yes. Productive? Anything but.
many americans got alienated
I said Trumpist idiots, so obviously I wasn't talking about patriotic, military/country serving people. No actual patriotic, military/country serving person would vote for Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote against America and a vote for treason. Everyone knows that. Trump does have an appeal for fascists and neo-Nazis though, doesn't he?
That's an interesting comment. So you think that any "military/country serving people" that vote for Trump, if he is the nominee, are traitors?
Sounds like you are because over 50 percent of military households supported Trump in the 2020 election.
Are they Trumpist idiots?
I can assure you that number probably has not changed, if not even grown a little.
I can't believe that over half of our service members are too fucking stupid to comprehend the oath they took or the reasons for america to have the military. but then again, I have heard about some people claiming to be veterans that are still supporting a seditious ex-POTUS.
So instead of answering the question, like other members, you would rather cast innuendo about other members? Not surprising.... what's your answer to 7.1.29?
Interesting that you upvoted @7.1.9 and @7.1.10, don't you think?
Thank you! It's nice to be appreciated.
Sure, no doubt. Did you want to answer the question or just gloss over it?...
I find it interesting those that upvoted 7.1.28 , don't you?
Oh, I do. Especially when those upvotes tend to indicate double standards.
Sort like getting mad at joke and seeing it as attack on military members while ignoring posts calling the majority of military members traitors on the same seed?
That sort of hypocrisy?
As are 7.1.9 and 7.1.10.
Or two....
Let's see - one was based solely on the branch of the military in which they served, and the lie (supported by several here) that it's not a military organization, and the other was based on action - support of a man who has attempted over months to foment insurrection to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Odd that you'd equate the two.
Perhaps you would like to express your opinion about the question asked @ 7.1.29 ?
Perhaps you'd like to express your opinion of the insulting comment to which Gsquared responded.
Or maybe to this:
No, I would prefer that Gsquared answered my question directly but since that doesn't seem likely, perhaps you could, instead of deflecting to something upthread...
Gsquared's comment was a direct response to the one upthread, so that's not a deflection, although I'm sure some would prefer to ignore that.
As Perrie said, this thread has been pretty rough both ways. Perhaps those who dish out should learn to take.
It is a deflection from my post.
No doubt....
Only because your post is a deflection from the post to which he replied.
Of course, the real deflection was when some folks turned the conversation to Congressional pay raises, as raised by Gsquared, to whether or not a politician could be designated "MAGA".
.
My post was a reply to his post.
Wow. Okay so you're taking the deflection to a whole other level then?...
So no answer then?....
Are we talking about Congressional pay raises? Or are you trying to insist that other people answer your questions about something other than Congressional pay raises? Because it looks to me like the latter.
Looks to me like you have a hard time keeping up with the thread.....
Nah, I just noticed that you jumped on an insult to the right, while ignoring that it was a response to an insult aimed at the left.
Nah, I jumped in on this,
And asked a pretty simple question, which has been dodged thus far.....
Ok Greg, since you asked, here is what I think. Anyone who is a patriotic individual (which I assume is most of use, but does not include insurrectionists, white supremacist accelerationists), whether military or civilian, who is considering voting for Trump, should check themselves, because Trump is poison to America. I know it. You know it. We all know it.
Also, you should listen to Sandy because she knows what she is talking about.
I don't sit on this site all day. Do you?
So you don't think they're treasonous, merely bad judgement?...
Not at all... you weren't the only member the question was posed to
They want you, and all of us, to accept the normalization of Trump, and his words and actions, and to accept that supporting Trump through thick and thin is perfectly normal.
Gee, 70 million people voted for him, he must be ok, right?
Demonstrating that Trump is an abominable abnormality is one of the easiest things someone who follows current events could ever do.
How about you JR? Do you want to take a stab @ 7.1.29 ?
Bad judgment for sure. Terrible judgment. You can't rule out that there might be some of a treasonous mindset. I will be seeding a current article relevant to the topic.
Not even remotely possible.
Okay, hopefully all members will be able to comment on it.
I won't be doing it today. The wife is calling me for dinner. It's dinner time here in L.A.
Why would anyone who doesnt accept a traitor vote for Donald Trump?
We have, today, an atmosphere where people on the Trump side of things act as if there is some mystery surrounding Jan 6th. There isnt . Trump wanted to and tried to overthrow a legitimate election and thus overthrow his own government. This is not in question to people who look at the facts.
I dont know whether every Trump supporter who is/was military is a traitor, but I do know Trump is a traitor and I think many of his supporters in and out of the military know that.
Why would patriotic people support a known traitor? That is for people like you to answer, not me or Sandy or G Squared.
So you're answer is yes? ... That anyone in "military/country service" that would vote for Trump is a traitor or at the least treasonous?
How do you get that from this?:
It depends on what you want to call someone who would vote for a traitor to be president of the United States. I guess they could plead ignorance.
You want to flip the script and make Trump voters sound like beleaguered victims. It is the country that is their victims.
I got that from this...
The question was pretty fucking simple. If you want to keep spinning like everyone else, carry on...
I have the same question. Why would patriotic people support a known traitor? I do not believe everyone who supports Trump IS a traitor (not even close), but I sure as hell would like to know how they can possibly justify such an irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic choice.
I have answered you quite directly, but I'll keep going if you want. First of all, whether or not someone is military has no bearing on whether or not they are supporting a traitor. If they are supporting Trump they are supporting a traitor. That doesnt change just because they are military. I think it is justifiable to call them all traitors in a general sense, but when you bring it down to individuals I'm sure many of them believe they are being patriotic.
At what point does recognizing that Trump is a traitor become their problem and not mine or Tig's?
no, I think they're really fucking stupid...
You've already given your opinion numerous times,.... please
Thanks John, an unabashedly honest answer.
Perhaps their ideas on what constitutes that are different from yours?
you asked and I gave it to you...
But you held back so much this time....
Do you actually think your piddling little efforts to make excuses for Trump and MAGA are taken seriously?
Trump has been indicted , twice, for his attempts to steal the 2020 election. There are facts related to those indictments. The special prosecutor has thousands of documents. This is not a case of "the left" picking on Trump and Trump supporters.
Donald Trump approved of a plan that would have disenfranchised (taken the votes away) from millions of people. If thats not being a traitor to the country I dont know what would be.
I think it is obvious that a Trump voter does not believe they are being irrational, irresponsible or unpatriotic.
It is not 'perhaps', it is 'certainly'. They of course believe they are making a good choice.
I think that is the problem.
So the best way to change that is to tell them how "irrational, irresponsible or unpatriotic" they are?..
There is no changing people who have committed themselves in a social forum.
Especially, there is no reasoning with people who are going to vote for Trump at this point.
I do not opine on the qualities of a Trump choice to change the mind of an interlocutor. That is pointless.
So why do I opine? To tease out some hints of rational thought from others. To embolden those who are not committed to Trump. To air grievance. To put forth a comment / question to see what others might offer.
Probably the same reasons you opine.
Wrong. I do NOT abide by Alinsky.
We all see the context. Greg is referring to me and you are thus referring to me.
Most people are not stupid, Texan, so do not assume they are.
They're not
Cat deployed, target neutralized.
How do I justify what? Are you suggesting I disassociate from my best friend of 40 years merely because of his political choices?
Then what are you suggesting I do?
defacing their trump bumper stickers with swastikas worked for me...
Reset the country for bragging about murder/domestic terrorism to zero. Better luck tomorrow
keep those rosary beads handy, the low hanging fruit gets picked first...
Reset the counter to zero.
Is there someone you can talk to? Do you need help?
Congress voting on their own pay raises is not a MAGA or Republican thing. It's stupid and always has been.
Demanding a pay raise or they will shut down the government and throw the economy into the trumpster dumpster is about as MAGA Republican as it gets.
I wonder how many Congressional Democrats are against it?..
democrats need to slap an amendment on that maga extortion pay raise that prorates reps salary daily on the session, and when a shutdown happens again, they won't get paid, and they can't vote to get themselves back pay.
Twenty-Seventh Amendment
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
False advertising, eh?
The Senate passed a C.R. that explicitly blocked an automatic Member Cost-of-Living Adjustment. That language was not included in the House GOP C.R., thus assuring they would get their pay raise.
I see where the House has passed a "clean" CR this morning. Now it's on to the Senate to see if they will pass it or not.
In 5.1.27 I defended no one, to say otherwise is bias run amuck.
I didn’t denigrate their service, of what I wrote confused you?
I’m a federal worker on the Army Staff and face the same pay disruption.
I apologize, as a retired soldier, I’m a used to black humor and am not as sensitive as perhaps you are.
Gaslighting. "I didn't say it, and if I did, I didn't mean it! You took it out of context! You're too sensitive!" You covered all the bases there.
Gaslighting?
Are you frequently humorless?
You covered none.
I wasn't trying to. And yes, gaslighting. "You're not really military because kids don't dream of joining the Coast Guard. Just joking! Sorry 'bout your paycheck!" is gaslighting.
Again, I said nothing about paychecks, theirs or mine, which are equally at risk.
Why is the Commandant of the Coast Guard not a member of the Joint Chiefs.
Why do you want to make a big deal out of my comment 5.1.27
So you were hoping to make fun of military personnel on a thread where their military status is being denied, and the threat to their wallets is being belittled, without anybody remarking on it?
Why?
I haven’t made fun of military personnel. I’m shocked that is your take away.
A reasonable remark might have been, I didn’t find that funny or what kids say about play isn’t relevant.
You seem to be attacking a little innocuous comment with fervent zeal. I wonder what that says about you.
The answer is that she answers to Secretary Mayorkas. A more important question, in my opinion, would be why with its own naval and ground forces can't DHS control our borders?
I spent 20 years in the Navy and I don't feel as if he is making fun of military personnel.
Some really need to stop making a big deal over absolutely nothing.
I doubt that you're all that shocked.
You don't get to write the responses of those calling you out for denigrating service members.
You denigrated military service, and call that innocuous. I wonder what that says about you.
Well, he was joining a dogpile stating that the Navy wasn't military, was he?
Some people need to know that when they decide that jocularity in response to lies and a dogpile on a military branch might be met with disapproval, and deal with it.
What I find funny is those that have never served try and civiliansplain how those that did serve should feel.
When I was active duty, the Coast Guard was a part of the Department of Transportation unless there was war, then they transferred to the DoD.
Every other service made fun of the Coast Guard because of that, saying things like they give rides to different places.
I know of zero Coasties that took offense to that.
No one else should either.
One I’ve never seen a pile of dogs and don’t know what you mean. Second, I wrote nothing about the Navy.
Exactly, I made a horrific mistake.
No mas, no mas. Please get in the last word, I won’t respond, so we can end this silly back and forth.
Civiliansplain, never heard that but you are exactly right. I appreciate your service and those of the Coast Guard. One of my daughters best friends is a Coastie. I've been to several impressive CG museums in Astoria Oregon, New London CT,Virginai Beach and Baltimore.
And they were always military.
Why is this so important to you?
Never said they weren't.
Time to get over it.
The House just passed a 45 day CR, in a 335-91 vote. It includes disaster relief funds, an extension of a federal flood insurance program and FAA reauthorization, but no Ukraine aid (mistake in my view). Now it’s the Senate’s next move.
But, it does not include a Congressional Pay Increase as that would violate the 27th Amendment.
Twenty-Seventh Amendment
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
I don’t know the fine points of the law, but I think this is meant to stop the previous deferral of a passed pay raise.
Democrats in both chambers of Congress last Jan introduced legislation that would provide federal employees with an average 8.7% pay raise in 2024.
The Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act , introduced by Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., in the House and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in the Senate, would increase federal workers’ basic pay by 4.7% across the board next year, and provide an average 4% increase in locality pay.
Almost didn’t happen, a democrat congressman pulled the fire alarm to prevent the vote, wonder if he will get charged with interfering with a official government proceeding?
Have to snicker at McCarthy equating it to Jan. 6.
It appears the house has passed a spending bill once again proving chicken little was more intelligent than many liberals. Now can the Senate govern? Or is Schumer incompetent?
Seeing as only 1 democrat voted against the bill and 209 voted for it while 90 republicans voted against it and 126 for it, just who is Chicken Little smarter than? Those who voted against it or those who voted for it?
p.s. this is not a trick question so if you have a trick answer make it a good one.
No the question only illustrates a lack of reading comprehension.
A bill? How can that be, [Deleted]
O boy, a trick answer.
Let's move on to another question. Which group of 'Rs' did you agree with, the Yays or the Nays? Careful now, all the crazies voted Nay.
Not at all, I said that all the crazies voted No not that all who voted no were crazy.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[I never locked a thread. Stop with the unfounded accusations.]
[Deleted]
UPDATE:
The House passed a bill 335-91 Saturday afternoon to fund the government for 45 days, hours before a government shutdown was to go into effect.
The bill House Speaker Kevin McCarthy put to a vote ultimately won support from more Democrats than Republicans. Ninety Republicans voted no on the continuing resolution to fund the government, and just a single Democrat voted against the short-term funding measure. The bill would fund the government at current 2023 levels for 45 days. It does not contain funding for Ukraine that was sought by Democrats but opposed by many Republicans but does include spending for disaster relief.
McCarthy was forced to rely on Democrats for passage because the speaker's hard-right flank said it would oppose any short-term measure. The speaker set up a process for voting requiring a two-thirds supermajority, about 290 votes in the 435-member House for passage. Republicans hold a 221-212 majority, with two vacancies.
House passes 45-day funding bill in late bid to avert government shutdown - CBS News
And the Senate passed the CR from the House so it goes to Biden to be signed. No government shutdown this time.
McCarthy may be forced to rely on Democrats to maintain his Speakership. Gaetz & Friends are at a minimum 10 times crazier than the 'Squad'.
What is "crazy" about expecting the man who ran for speaker to keep his word.
They had since May to go through every appropriation, in proper order, so everyone could discuss and vote on each measure. We shouldn't be passing massive spending bills, loaded with pork at the last minute under the pressure of a government shutdown.
There was even money in the budget to transport illegal migrants. At the bare minimum, that provision should have been removed.
The people requesting him to keep his word are far right wing radicalized insurgents.
He broke his word. Do you like the way congress approves budgets?
Um, name a politician that hasn't?
# 16
A N D... The MAGA hats caved. The anarchy of the gop failed, again...
I really enjoy the infighting among the republicans and it's hilarious to watch it play out in public.
... and just when you thought it couldn't be even more hilarious.