"Cromnibus" Spending Bill - Shutdown Averted!

[anvi]

Money is the mother's milk of politics.  It's practically the only kind of nutrient that politicians digest.  That's the problem.  Those guys take the money, turn around and practically, at times literally, let the organizations that bankrolled their campaigns write legislation for them.  That's not just free speech, that creates systematic distortion of an elected official's capacity to represent the interests of the bulk of their constituents. I really don't understand, given the current state of our system, why anyone would believe sunshine laws with unlimited contributions would make things anything other than worse--except the parties and politicians who benefit, of course.  Politicians are not generally afraid of having people know who gives them money now--few voters even pay attention--, and unlimited contributions would enable them to return donations to occasionally embarrassing sources with even less damage to their campaigns than already occurs.  Contribution limits would make the raising of extra funds illegal, and that's a far stronger deterrent for someone seeing the public trust than having to b.s. one's way to explaining why donor so-and-so's "vision" is "good for American and Americans." 

[Brewer]

Looks like Gary Peters voted for the bill. Turns out I'm no big fan of any newly-elected Senators this year.

[Türkisblau]

Looks like Gary Peters voted for the bill. Turns out I'm no big fan of any newly-elected Senators this year.

Gary Peters isn't Ted Cruz? What a shock!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While sunshine laws are not a panacea, at least they have a chance of doing more than simply shuffling the money through a different set of hoops each time the latest campaign finance "reform" law is passed.

[krazen1211]

Here's a hilarious video. This was before the lazy moocher party was routed in the 2014 elections.

Link

[pbrower2a]

It's a sleazy deal, but wait until January 2015 and the Republicans would load a spending bill with material even more objectionable. President Obama got what he could while he did.

Stupid America voted in scummy politicians and can expect scummy results.   

[TJ in Oregon]

I find this entire debacle nothing short of bizarre. The idea that Democrats had no choice but to support this - for the sake of moderation, bipartisanship, pragmatism, or whatever - is, in fact, more heavily political than the argument that ought to have opposed it.

Raising campaign contribution limits, partial repeal of Dodd-Frank, even overruling DC's legalization of marijuana - these are policies that are unpopular even among many Republican-leaning sections the general public. It reminds me of nothing so much as the persistent, ridiculous argument that Democrats would be doomed if they didn't adopt Bowles-Simpson as the foundation of their federal agenda.

I'm kind of amazed Obama wants to sign it honestly. Man, if this is what compromise looks like, I sure want more Of course it didn't defund ObamaCare or the immigration executive order, but either of those two things would be a break from the status quo rather than a continuation of it. Of course the Tea Party threw its little conniption, but thankfully they're irrelevant enough at this point for the Republicans to pass it party line without their useless brinkmanship. The Congressional Republicans did something competent for once!

[politicallefty]

Of course it didn't defund ObamaCare or the immigration executive order, but either of those two things would be a break from the status quo rather than a continuation of it.

It appears as though those are the only breaking points in terms of right-wing legislation actually becoming law. The only thing I've been and am sure of about President Obama is that he will not sign anything that limits or otherwise thwarts the ACA. I think his recent immigration action is also something he'll be extremely protective of. In other words, you shouldn't be expecting any Congressional action attacking the ACA or his immigration order to make it into law. I'm certain President Obama would risk shutdown over those issues. As for what is given up in return for that, I have no idea.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course it didn't defund ObamaCare or the immigration executive order, but either of those two things would be a break from the status quo rather than a continuation of it.

It appears as though those are the only breaking points in terms of right-wing legislation actually becoming law. The only thing I've been and am sure of about President Obama is that he will not sign anything that limits or otherwise thwarts the ACA. I think his recent immigration action is also something he'll be extremely protective of. In other words, you shouldn't be expecting any Congressional action attacking the ACA or his immigration order to make it into law. I'm certain President Obama would risk shutdown over those issues. As for what is given up in return for that, I have no idea.

The bill does gut the pooling of risk from the ACA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And the Senate passes it.

Cloture was 77-19. Here are the 19. I would assume Brown, Franken, Warren, and Sanders voted nay because they are FFs, while the others voted nay for other reasons.

Brown (D-OH)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Franken (D-MN)
Heller (R-NV)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warren (D-MA)

Final vote was 56-40, still waiting on the roll call.


Interesting how the top 5 Senators mentioned as Presidential candidates were all among the 19.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democratic caucus voted 32-22 in favor.   Feinstein didn't vote.
Here are the 22 nays.

2 of the nays (Harkin and Levin) are retiring, but the others up this year were all re-elected. Peters voted for in the House. So the Democrats in the next Senate will be 25-20 in favor.

Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[Ban my account ffs!]

8/10 minnesotan congress critters voted nay on this bungle.  I am proud of them!

[Beet]

What's the rationale for voting aye on cloture and nay on the final bill? Just to be able to say they voted against it?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What's the rationale for voting aye on cloture and nay on the final bill? Just to be able to say they voted against it?

So they can say that they didn't hold up the senate cruz-style, while still opposing the bill itself.

[free my dawg]

The Democratic caucus voted 32-22 in favor.  Feinstein didn't vote.
Here are the 22 nays.

2 of the nays (Harkin and Levin) are retiring, but the others up this year were all re-elected. Peters voted for in the House. So the Democrats in the next Senate will be 25-20 in favor.

Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I would like to take this moment to apologize to Colleen Hanabusa. She may not have supported gay marriage until it was politically convenient, she may have tried to primary Patsy Mink, but at least she stood up against big business this week. I was her biggest attacker on this forum, and with this vote today, she's proven that I supported the wrong candidate int his race.

[free my dawg]

It's honestly a little shocking when my first reactions to this bill are "Come on, even Manchin doesn't think this is a good idea" and "Inouye was right". A little random, but f**k it. I'm in the process of losing what little attachment I had to the Democratic Party.

[Miles]

^

[publicunofficial]

I don't blame Schatz, he's a freshman Senator who needs to gain influence in the Senate and you don't do that by voting against Reid.


Chris Murphy, another reliable progressive, voted yea for likely similar reasons.

[Beet]

Oh god, now even Brian Schatz isn't far left enough

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh god, now even Brian Schatz isn't far left enough

He voted for a bill written by Citi to put taxpayers on the hook for $300 trillion worth of derivatives.

[free my dawg]

Oh god, now even Brian Schatz isn't far left enough

I just said Schatz was more socially liberal than Hanabusa. Read my sh*t before you take shots at me.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Clearly, the populist agenda won and not the establishment agenda, which dropped the ball on this one, and clearly heading into a General election, populism can win, like Obama did in 2008.

[Simfan34]

^

I don't think he's moving any closer to you or I...

[ilikeverin]

8/10 minnesotan congress critters voted nay on this bungle.  I am proud of them!

I'm honestly shocked that Klobuchar voted "no".  Very interesting!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

8/10 minnesotan congress critters voted nay on this bungle.  I am proud of them!

I thought your people loved compromise and harmony?