1 Welcome to the Thunderdome bitch.

2 We will proceed as if the House had funded Obamacare. This decision by the House leadership is an outlier and will not affect implementation.

3 The Senate can't insist on funding. All spending/appropriations bills have to originate in the House.

I guess the Senate could stamp its feet and whine.

4 Cool.  We haven't had a serious constitutional crisis in, what, seventy-odd years?

5 does the House need to affirmatively "block" funding, or can they just do this passively by simply not appropriating funds for it?

No, this is the Continuing Resolution...it's the funding bill for the government. If there's no money in it for your program, you're out of business.

When Cantor says, "I expect to see one way or other the product coming out of the House to speak to that and to preclude any funding to be used for that," what I think he means is, the agencies can't shuffle money from other accounts for these purposes. It's a way to make sure Obama doesn't do an end run around the defunding by accounting tricks.

And if the Senate insists on such funds, but the House holds firm... I guess a government shutdown?

Game on, I guess.

6 The Senate can't insist on funding. All spending/appropriations bills have to originate in the House.
Posted by: Ella at February 08, 2011 06:09 PM (DmnMk)

No. Tax and spending bills have to start in the House but that doesn't mean they can't be amended when they get to the Senate.

7 Heartbreak Ridge, bitches!

8 3 The Senate can't insist on funding. All spending/appropriations bills have to originate in the House.

They can refuse to pass the House bill as is. They can add what they want to it, alter other things, and pass it their way. Then it goes to committee where there's usually a compromise which always seems to come down on the side of the spenders.

9 They block it by not funding.

But they need to vote on the "not funding" ... That's what this is.

So the Senate can do whatever they want, if the House doesn't fund, it don't get spent. The Constitution is your guide.

10 Who cares . Teh Won hasn't been caught smoking by the First Nagger for one year or sump'in like that .

11 I find it amazing that, Ben Nelson, he of the notorious Cornhusker Kickback, recently voted, in essence to ratify this steaming  pile!

I take it, he is not planning on running again!

Wow!

Nebraskans: 0  DC: 10!

Suck it bitches!

People in this town like me!

12 Posted by: mongo78 at February 08, 2011 06:10 PM (2b46R) Actually, I would consider the White House ignoring Judge Vinson's ruling of O-care as unconstitutional, a constitutional crisis. His ruling, by implication, means cease and desist, yet they say the ruling means nothing without an actual order to restrain. This administration truly is a tyranny.

13 Damn cocksuckers would all be dead by now If I were still alive.

14 Speaker Dean Martin said he will not fund health care!
He also stated that he will proceed with a bill on the floor of the House to Free Nickless & Logprof!

15 the First Nagger

Just what in the hell do you mean by that?

16 Just what in the hell do you mean by that? Jeebus , that does look way worse than I intended . I will denounce myself forthwith .

17

If the House just ignores the entire issue of funding, does Obamacare get funded automatically? 

If not, pardon my ignorance, but why not just not bring it up and let it die a peaceful hoped for facilitated, Oregon style, death?

18 The Dems will blame it on Cantor and proceed to use the code words for Joo!

Which I guess is Jew.

19 Did the Obama administration request and receive a stay after U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health care bill was unconstitutional?  I haven't read that one was issued, but with the MSM being what it is, a lot of stuff that happens isn't reported.

20 6 The Senate can't insist on funding. All spending/appropriations bills have to originate in the House.
Posted by: Ella at February 08, 2011 06:09 PM (DmnMk)

No. Tax and spending bills have to start in the House but that doesn't mean they can't be amended when they get to the Senate.

Ummm...aaahhh...I got nothing....

21 Shooter and DrewM, but wasn't a bill recently scuttled because the Senate added in a spending rider, and that was unconstitutional since spending can only originate in the House? So they had to revote? I don't think the Senate can just add something new in and have the House compromise on it.

22 One of the proposals mentioned by Cantor is an amendment by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mt.), which would bar funding. 

23 Did the Obama administration request and receive a stay after U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health care bill was unconstitutional? I haven't read that one was issued, but with the MSM being what it is, a lot of stuff that happens isn't reported. Posted by: mrp at February 08, 2011 06:23 PM (HjPtV) I don't think they ever did ask for one? I may be wrong. I am not lawyer so I am not sure what is going on?

24 Why do I expect to get disappointed -- again?

25 Remember if a spending bill is amended by the Senate, to add the spending, it must go back to the House for a re-vote, where the objectionable spending can be removed, or just simply not voted on.

You cannot spend money if the House does not vote the funds. It's the Constitution...

It only becomes law if both Houses vote on the EXACT same verbiage.

26 The way it looks to me, this gives the House cover for passing the responsibility for spending the country into a final, total meltdown to the Senate.

The Senator From Harrah's will make sure Osama Obama gets his socialized medicine, Biden his toy trains, and of course plenty of perks for his own corrupt buddyroos.

Then Boner and the rest can stamp their feet and whine "we tried!!11!!" while never having to do anything so arduous as taking a principled stand.

This is the way the world ends...not with a bang, but a bankruptcy.

27 16 Just what in the hell do you mean by that?

Jeebus , that does look way worse than I intended .

I will denounce myself forthwith .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at February 08, 2011 06:20 PM (npr0X)

It can be a real bitch can't it? 

28

This sets up a great three-way game of Chicken.

The House can refuse to pass any bill that funds ObamaCare.  The Senate can refuse to pass any bill that doesn't fund ObamaCare.  In that game, either the Dems peel off 25 House Republicans or the GOP peels off 4 Senate Democrats.  Who do you suppose is more nervous about facing the voters in 2012?

In the second game, Obama can veto any bill that doesn't fund ObamaCare.  Overriding his veto becomes a huge obstacle: there's no practical way that the GOP would be able to muster a veto override.  So the GOP option then becomes going back, passing the same damn bill again, and challenging Obama to veto it again.

In both games, the risk is that the Federal government will have to shut down because its funding bills haven't passed Congress and been signed by Obama.

So which side has got the brass balls to shut down the Federal government and risk the wrath of confused voters (who will be barraged with disinformation from the MSM)?

29 What if they shut down the government and no one noticed?

30 Now experience the power of this fully operational - um, House.

31 Because if a stay on the Vinson decision isn't in place, then one way of looking at the Republican blocking move is that it forces the administration into a fish-or-cut-bait situation with the House and the Judiciary on one side and the White House on the other.

At the moment it's like a Phony War.

32 I guess a government shutdown?

That's not a necessary consequence, but it can happen. And if it happened, it would unleash the same kind of relentless, day-after-day, every-hour-on-the-hour anti-GOP news wave that the DC GOP used to stop the class of '94 from doing any of the icky conservative stuff they were elected to do.

Ryan is budget chairman.

Prepare your anus.

33 Shooter and DrewM, but wasn't a bill recently scuttled because the Senate added in a spending rider, and that was unconstitutional since spending can only originate in the House? So they had to revote? I don't think the Senate can just add something new in and have the House compromise on it.

Posted by: Ella at February 08, 2011 06:24 PM (DmnMk)

ObamaCare itself, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was entirely written by the Senate.  Remember what happened?  Harry Reid took a bill that originated in the House, erased all of its content, replaced all of it with the Senate version of ObamaCare, and sent it to the House, where Nancy Pelosi forced her Democrats to vote for it without any amendments.

How soon we forget!

34 And if the Senate insists on such funds, but the House holds firm... I guess a government shutdown?

Suggested spin:

Obamacare is shutting down the government.

35 Next Episode: Return of the Debt Ceiling

36 I guess a government shutdown?

You keep talking like that and you're going to give me an erection.

37 What if they shut down the government and no one noticed?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 08, 2011 06:30 PM (xdHzq)

You know, at the current rate of spending, every hour the Federal government is shut down, we MAKE money.

38 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 08, 2011 06:16 PM (UlUS4)
 
Good point.  So we've got executive branch vs. judicial branch, executive branch vs. legislative branch, and don't forget the state vs. federal gubment action that got the ball rolling in the first place.
 
This experiment with a constitutional republic is unraveling with astonishing speed.

39 Keep the Democrats voting "yes" on things the public hates and "no" on things the public wants. 2012 waits to pounce.

40 Posted by: stuiec at February 08, 2011 06:33 P

Wasn't this pile of shit written by Senate aides, union lawyers and various traitors from the Osama Obama cabal?

I don't know of any Senator -- or, for that matter, any member of the House -- with an attention span long enough to write so much unadulterated crap.

41 Posted by: Ella at February 08, 2011 06:24 PM (DmnMk)

Actually, I made a mistake when I wrote "tax and spending" have to originate in the House, it's just tax bills (sorry for the brain lock).

Article I, Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

But even w/just taxing bills, you see the Senate may amend it.

42 I dont believe they have to block it. They just wont appropriate any funds.... I think. I dont think the Senate has much leverage if the House gets it way... I think

43 Dear GOP Congressperson,
 
Last fall you had the courage to stand up and say that repealing OCare was at the top of your To Do list. I then supported you with my time, dollars, and vote.
 
It's time to pay up.

44 From Politico:

"Republican leaders are leaning toward allowing Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg — head of the subcommittee that holds the purse strings for the nation’s health care apparatus, who’s running for the Senate against Democratic incumbent Jon Tester — to offer an amendment on the floor during debate that would choke off funding. This would provide a second opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the health care bill — the House already voted to repeal it earlier this session."

45

Posted by: DrewM. at February 08, 2011 06:37 PM (HicGG)

Taxing versus Appropriations.

House has exclusive control of appropriations. I dont think the Senate can do anything if its strictly an appropriations bill.

46 What if they shut down the government and no one noticed?
I take it you don't live in a HUD apartment building for retirees.

47 A simple message to all members of Congress: "You can and will be voted out" Do not fuck up.

48 House has exclusive control of appropriations. I dont think the Senate can do anything if its strictly an appropriations bill.
Posted by: Swamp Yankee at February 08, 2011 06:42 PM (3DIBw)

Where in the Constitution do you get that from?

In that version of things, we wouldn't have a bi-cameral legislature when it comes to spending.

49 Wasn't this pile of shit written by Senate aides, union lawyers and various traitors from the Osama Obama cabal?

I don't know of any Senator -- or, for that matter, any member of the House -- with an attention span long enough to write so much unadulterated crap.

Posted by: MrScribbler© supports the New Nickless-Logprof Panther Party at February 08, 2011 06:37 PM (Ulu3i)

Ah, but the Senate is a bigger institution than just the 100 Senators.  One might even say that they aren't its most important components.

50 This experiment with a constitutional republic is unraveling with astonishing speed.

Actually, I think it is working quite well.  The progressives want a "living" Constitution?  The Madisonian principles of distributed powers and checks and balances are spinning up quite nicely.

51 And if the Senate insists on such funds, but the House holds firm... I guess a government shutdown?

It all hinges on what we have been talking about for months. The House must split the funding bills into parts. If the Senate or Obama trashes the department with the funding for Obamacare cut out, then that department gets nothing.

52 51 And if the Senate insists on such funds, but the House holds firm... I guess a government shutdown?

It all hinges on what we have been talking about for months. The House must split the funding bills into parts. If the Senate or Obama trashes the department with the funding for Obamacare cut out, then that department gets nothing.

Posted by: Vic at February 08, 2011 06:48 PM (M9Ie6)

The House will give in, once the Senate insists. They'll piss and moan and blame the Dems, but give in. They think the lesson to be learned from '95 is they'll be blamed for a shut down, and sadly, they're probably right.

53 Just a thought ...

If there is a government shutdown over funding a program that has been ruled unconstitutional in its entirety by a federal court, what are the odds that the USSC will expedite the appeals process by by-passing the 11th Circuit and taking the case directly?

54 It all hinges on what we have been talking about for months. The House must split the funding bills into parts. If the Senate or Obama trashes the department with the funding for Obamacare cut out, then that department gets nothing.

Posted by: Vic at February 08, 2011 06:48 PM (M9Ie6)

Good point.  If the House puts Health and Human Services into a separate approporiations bill, and passes funding for all the other departments, then the only piece of the Federal government that (potentially) gets shut down is HHS.

Of course, the Senate and/or Obama could choose not to pass the funding bills for the other government departments unless and until they get a HHS funding bill they like... but then the sin is upon their heads for shutting down everything besides HHS.

55 hey think the lesson to be learned from '95 is they'll be blamed for a shut down, and sadly, they're probably right.

God I hope not because this is not 95 where the Dems can plan a government shutdown in advance to blame on the House and get away with it because they have the MFM in their pocket.

They no longer own ALL the media. In addition, like I said, these funding bills need to be split so if they do block them, only a portion of the gov is shutdown.

I think the people will support that anyway. In addition, in 95 I don't recall ANY "people" being upset about the phony gov shutdown, only the press and the Dems.

56 It won't be '95 all over again.  In 1995, the show-down was construed by the MSM as a Gingrich vs. Clinton personality conflict.  Not this time.

Two federal courts have ruled that at least part (and all parties agree that the individual mandate is the most important part of the health "reform" act), is unconstitutional.  The administration has appealed the decisions to the appellate courts, but it is unknown by me whether the government has requested a stay of the Vinson ruling.

And the health care "reform" program is very unpopular with the voting public.

57 The Congress doesn't need to fund Obamacare because it pays for itself.

Actually, it saves so much money, that it has leftover money to pay itself extra, so it can expand itself, so it can save even more money...

58 15 the First Nagger That calls for a Laurel and Hardy welcome!

59  The Congress doesn't need to fund Obamacare because it pays for itself.

Actually, it saves so much money, that it has leftover money to pay itself extra, so it can expand itself, so it can save even more money...  And everybody has a share.   

Posted by: Barack H. Obama, Milo Minderbinder, Math Genius at February 08, 2011 07:05 PM (OJKfx)

60 You can blow us now.

61 What if they shut down the government and no one noticed?

I'm good with that.

62

11 I find it amazing that, Ben Nelson, he of the notorious Cornhusker Kickback, recently voted, in essence to ratify this steaming  pile!

He will never see Nebraska soil again. He'll go the Jane Harman route. I also have a hard time believing this:

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg ... whoÂ’s running for the Senate against Democratic incumbent Jon Tester

If Tester runs, he's a fool and he'd better be able to raise all his own money because there ain't no way the party will sink a dime into his campaign.  And he'll have to be able to spend enough to have hookers fellate every male voter in Montana twice a day from now until the election.

63

What the House should do is break the usual 8 to 10 spending bills down into something like 50 or 60 small bills.  Put just enough "goodies" in each one to get the Senate to Pass and Obama to sign them.  Keep promising to include the unwanted stuff in the next bill, but never do so.   Like NPR could be in the "Community Development" bill, but oops, we decided to put it in the "Communications Funding" bill  but oops, now it's going in the "Cultural Communities" bill... but SORRY, we didn't have the votes to pass that.

Right now it's too ovious where the funding for NPR is, so if the Omnibus Porkulus bill shows up without it there is a shitstorm in the Senate and complicit media.

The House needs to assert their FULL rights to organize the spending as they see fit.  Send the real THIRD RAIL stuff through alone.   Social Security funding.   Yes or No.  We approve and send to the Senate and Obama.  OK, what can they do but sign it.  Now, it's can't be used in the "make grandma eat catfood" play we've seen run by the 'tards so many times.

Get smart guys!  You're like a really bad NFL franchise that has been running the same plays for 8 years.  Time for razzle-dazzle.  Time for the wildcat offense.   Time to fake a punt!

Let's go!

64

I still would like to ALSO see a Sense of the House resolution, confirming Jundge Vinson's ruling on the Commerce Clause...

It it not binding on the Supreme Court, BUT the Court CAN and has in the past, used such things in its rulings.

65 Don't worry!  We don't need to actually control the Senate.  So long as we get up to 46 or 47 senators, we're good.

66 Don't worry! We don't need to actually control the Senate. So long as we get up to 46 or 47 senators, we're good. Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at February 08, 2011 07:46 PM (FYCiJ) Can we just stifle this stuff?

67 I will always win in the end, bitches. I make the laws. I interpret the constitution.

68 Wouldn't the matter still have to go back to the Senate?

All bills raising revenue have to originate in the House, do they not?
.

69

Shiney high speed rails! Shiney high speed rails! Shiney high speed rails!

 

70 Posted by: stuiec at February 08, 2011 06:30 PM (Di3Im)

Very succinct!

71 Just a thought ...
If there is a government shutdown over funding a program that has been ruled unconstitutional in its entirety by a federal court, what are the odds that the USSC will expedite the appeals process by by-passing the 11th Circuit and taking the case directly?

Given the mixed court rulings, couldn't the house approve the funding of Obamacare contingent on it being ruled constitutional by SCOTUS?  Pressure would be placed on Zero and Holder to join Virginia in requesting an expedited ruling, or absent that Zero would get the blame for a government shutdown.

72

The question is, "does the GOP have the balls to fight this battle?"  The GOP merely needs to use the following strategy:

"Here's the bill that funds defense" "heres the bill that funds medicaid" "heres the bill that funds federal parks" etc.

Just split the budget up in to smaller and smaller bills instead of this total omnibus spending bullshit. DON'T fund Obamacare, and include a rider that funds CANNOT be moved to other departments. The DEMS and Obama won't dare veto sections of the budget that have nothing to do with Obamacare, like food stamps. etc.

Put it back on those a**holes and make them own this garbage. 

 

73 I guess a government shutdown? From your blog to God's ears.

74

Shiney high speed rails! Shiney high speed rails! Shiney high speed rails!

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 08, 2011 07:55 PM (3DIBw)

And when Congress refuses to go along with $53 billion for high-speed rail, Obama will claim that he's implemented a $53 billion budget cut right there.

75 And he'll have to be able to spend enough to have hookers fellate every male voter in Montana twice a day from now until the election.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 08, 2011 07:28 PM (BvBKY)

Isn't that what AmeriCorps volunteers are for?

76 If the spending bills are split, then the Democrats can be the ones "holding the government hostage" when they won't pass the non-HHS bill because it doesn't have Ocare in it.

Sure, the MBM will lie about it, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to call them damned liars as loud as I can.

77

There are no appropriations for FY2011.  pelosi's crew did not do their job.  The repubs can address issues differently when they do the appropriations for FY2012.

FY2011 is just one (or 2) big continuing resolutions.

78 There are no appropriations for FY2011.  pelosi's crew did not do their job.

So it's really open season then.

79

Just split the budget up in to smaller and smaller bills instead of this total omnibus spending bullshit. DON'T fund Obamacare, and include a rider that funds CANNOT be moved to other departments. The DEMS and Obama won't dare veto sections of the budget that have nothing to do with Obamacare, like food stamps. etc.

That is what they can do for FY2012.  This is not an option for the remainer of FY2011

80

So it's really open season then.

That's the way I see it.  I think the BIG negotiated deal will be the agreement reached between the House and Senate in confernce.

81 So why is the AoSHQ so much fun?

It is certainly not the posts, OK Gabe is on his game, as are his comments.

Ace has the only place with commenter that are not, a) brain dead and b) almost sober.

It is a winning formula! 

Ace. $325 mill? sell out!  Clearly the AoSHQ is more valuable that was her whats her names place.

82 Don't get your hopes up on this one, even though it seems to be a lock.  If the funding does get "blocked," an odd term considering it would simply not be funded, we will all breath a sigh of relief.  Then the Repubs need to get another CBO score to tell us all how much it will "save" from 2014 plus nine.

The term "blocked" really annoys me.  Why not say that they will just refuse to fund the program?  Why "blocked?"  Is it more muscular?  Does the use of an active verb score well in focus groups?

To me, the term "blocked" means they may not be able to get away with it.  Like it's some kind of arcane parliamentary procedure never before attempted by men in tights.

83 What if they shut down the government and no one noticed?

What if they shut down the government and nobody cared?  I need my passport renewed in 2012, but I could go without ethanol subsidies for a long, long time. 

On a more serious note, it's on Obama.  He could refuse to sign a budget not funding something most Americans oppose, but that's a hard sell.  He'd probably have the government unions picketing the White House in a week, demanding he sign.  

Ace, if you sell, I want $20 for this comment.   

84 You jackwagons never learn, do you?

85 something tells me Boehner isn't going to just deem any Senate spending increases as passed.

86 shutitdown shutitdown shutitdown.  Spending is significantly reduced while it's shut down.  Our guys need to understand that a government shutdown is full of win,  unless those retards do the emergency funding measure to keep the "essential" parts of the government going.    If they are going to do that again they might as well just give the gavel back to Pelosi now.

87 Very useful stuff,i've learn more here.

88 altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - maurers - ozon yağı

89 All NFL Jerseys on our store at cheap prices-We also can say CHEAP NFL JERSEYS.The good place for you to choose