1 Hey, no fair dousing the flame war.

2 Come to the Dark Side, Luke

3 well, then it's probably a wise move...

4 Ace, you got it right.  The story is indeed the new non-desire to sit on the appropriations committee - which spells positive as the committee is in part radioactive.  Radioactive, due to the damage done by the liberal spending.  

5 Big caves featured in two posts in a row.

6 Good, if the Teabaggers don't want the job, fuck 'em. Put the reasonable and moderate No Labels Republicans there, not a bunch of skinflint nutjobs.

Oh, and I need appropriations, if it snows again those Bike Paths in Manhattan MUST be cleared!

7 Cicero, give Ace a break. 

8

And how does this change things for me??

 

9 Just because Appropriations is diminished as a plum perch doesn't mean, I don't think, that literally everyone will say no to it.

This is kind of the heart of my disagreement with your take on it. Appropriations isn't really being diminished as a plum perch at all. Rather, the Tea Partiers who are saying no are just looking out for their political backsides like every other politician ever sent to D.C. before them.

For every Tea Partier that says no, there are (at least) a couple of porkers just salivating at the thought of saying yes.

If changing Washington is the goal, changing the makeup of this committee to the greatest extent possible should be part of it.

Like Drew said in the other thread, this isn't exactly a Profile in Courage.

10 As I said earlier, it depends on what is going on behind the scenes. If they are being offered "plum" assignments as a condition to "go along to get along" I say stay off the committee and maybe even rat out some assholes doing those offers.

If they were simply offered the position because they wanted some new blood on the committee then they should take.

That being said, the cynic in me says that most likely the first case is what is going on.

11 I'll dig into the corruption on the Appropriations Committee, right after I finish my thorough investigations as to why the President doesn't use Titleist balls!

12 8

And how does this change things for me??

 

Posted by: The Chicken at January 03, 2011 04:44 PM (pr+up)

You servin some cherry pi 404 w/ dat chicken?

13 It's retarded.  Accept an offer to be on the eeeeevil Committee so that you prevent some big spender from getting on.

The Left is better than we are at infiltrating and subverting.

14 Posted by: Andy at January 03, 2011 04:45 PM (veZ9n)

This. ^10

The problem with "go-along-to-get-along" politics has always been that Republicans were the only ones subject to it- when we expected reciprocation we got burned.  Well, I say it's high time to turn the tables.  Take the "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" plum assignment with the "understanding" you'll "go-along-to-get-along."  And then don't.

15

Oh dear...my vitamin D levels must be off again.

**sniff**sniff**

 

16 Take the "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" plum assignment with the "understanding" you'll "go-along-to-get-along."  And then don't.

Works for me!

17

Volunteering for Appropriations this Congress would be like purposely stepping on a Land Mine, hoping it won't go off.

There is NO way the entrenched Leadership of EITHER party will allow them to make the fundamental changes needed to really fix anything... and if you are on it and DON'T fix anything, your name will be mud with the Electorate.

Loose/Loose for incoming TEA Party types...

 

18 Boehner mad it clear the new people will only get to be on one committee.
If you only get to pick one why would anybody choose to be the guy who sits there and says No while his colleagues in his own party go round his ass anyway?
You don't need to be on a committee to point put whats wrong with a bill. You are on the committee to put stuff in. Nobody wants to be the guy who puts stuff in an appropriations bill unless you are a Dem.

19 Resistance is futile.

20 8 And how does this change things for me?? Posted by: The Chicken at January 03, 2011 04:44 PM (pr+up) It doesn't. And why don't you hop on over here.

21 There is NO way the entrenched Leadership of EITHER party will allow them to make the fundamental changes needed to really fix anything... and if you are on it and DON'T fix anything, your name will be mud with the Electorate.

You don't have a high opinion of voters who identify with the Tea Party when you assume they won't make the effort to actually check their Congress-critter's voting record. 

22 Posted by: Leeza Moocowpat at January 03, 2011 04:50 PM (IDL9N)

Your Honor, the prosecution rests.

23 And how does this change things for me?? Posted by: The Chicken at January 03, 2011 04:44 PM (pr+up) Your new ball gag has a fresh minty scent.

24 Damn, Johnny!

These rookies are hard nuts to crack, I'm gonna have to double the budget for exotic dancers and lap dances for these guys to get them right

25

So we're getting all wee weed up over an articulation emanating from one Major Garrett of ABC News who cites ONE instance in specific where a newbie turns down a seat on the Appropriations' committee with the subtext being, 'those hypocritical tea partiers' and Ace doesn't fall for it but everyone else does and now we're eating our young.

Alas, we have achieved circular parity, our work is now done.

26 Appropriate: govt taking one's private property; stealing money from the citizen's Treasury for some stupid and wasteful purpose.

27 Yes, a Tea-partier would feel right at home at the Appropriations Committee.

28 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2011 04:50 PM (AdK6a)

This is exactly wrong.  Most of these Representatives got voted in specifically because their constituents figured out that you needed to look at someone's record and then vote for it instead of their pretty words.  If they do everything in their, admittedly limited, power to stop the most egregious spending, they'll be fine.

If they go and put forth an honest fight against the Dragon that is the Appropriations Committee, then they'll be touted as heroes even if they "fail."  At least, they will on the Conservative side of the aisle.

29 now we're eating our young

Who's eating our young?  The majority of comments seem to be along the lines of "roll up your sleeves and tackle the hard job" with a vocal minority applauding the freshmen (plural implied more than proven) who have turned down the assignment.  It's an honest disagreement about strategy.  There's no circular firing squad here. 

30 I'm going out for a smoke.  Send up a flare if Major Garrett should find his ass with one hand.  

31 And if you don't remember why we lost the House in 2006, here's why: In June 2006, the House Appropriations Committee passed a $3 million earmark to establish the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

32 While Garrett is noting the "trouble" they're having getting Tea Partiers on Appropriations, it's my assumption he's focusing only on the no's, and that I am guessing at least some Tea Partiers say yes.

If that's the case, then there's really no point to his story though.

Some said yes, some said no. The same number that would have gotten on, got on, it's just different bodies. That's not much of a story.

I'm trying to find a list of new members on the committee but can scare one up. We'll find out for sure on Wednesday when they update the websites. 

33

If one was into the critical thinking business, they would ask drum major garrett what was the first choice on the list of committees if not appropriations. 

Did I miss that from the article?

34 meanwhile...the new Republican-led House thinks it can jerk us off by passing a resolution that cuts 5% of the office-budgets in Congress.

35

Drew M.

B-I-N-G-O Baby.

36 Did I miss that from the article?

I thought it was Issa's committee - the one that investigates stuff.

Or was that just ace's interpretation?

37 If they go and put forth an honest fight against the Dragon that is the Appropriations Committee, then they'll be touted as heroes even if they "fail."  At least, they will on the Conservative side of the aisle.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 03, 2011 04:55 PM (8y9MW)

Junior members on a Commitee have... how much power?

Until you get to the Chairman type of positions, the agenda is already set for you... you can make a pretty speech... and then vote (in committee)... but your speeches will NOT be heard by the electorate, and your votes will be over ridden by those who wish to maintain the "status quo".

I'm MUCH more politicaly aware than the average citizen... and yet I could not even tell you who is ON the Appropriations Committee, let alone how they voted on individual things...

But Government Oversite??? Its going to be on TV a LOT it looks like...

38

Y-not, I think you are right. I was too lazy to double check.

That perhaps supports a parallel thesis that (major garrett drum roll here) the tea partiers are perhaps loaded for bear in a game of "gloves off."

39 The more weak kneed RINOs on the AC, the more we can primary their sorry butts in 2012. Sure, at least one TPer ought to take a seat there just to have some voice, but a couple of RINOs plus the full Dem side of the AC vote will move things out of committee.
 
Where the full House will then have to go on record. That should be the fun part of this.

40

I don't think the Tea Party, or anything else, can change the rule that a lot of politicians have ambition.

 

No!!  Tell me it ain't so!

41 So we're getting all wee weed up over an articulation emanating from one Major Garrett of ABC News who cites ONE instance in specific where a newbie turns down a seat on the Appropriations' committee with the subtext being, 'those hypocritical tea partiers' and Ace doesn't fall for it but everyone else does and now we're eating our young.

Really?  Well couple that with the "max one committee" rule and it makes perfect sense.  These guys would rather be on other committees than be a useless no vote in the sucking maw that is Appropriations.

Why do we keep falling for this?  MSM delenda est!

42 one Major Garrett of ABC News National Journal.

Fixt. And before that he was Fox News' White House correspondent.

43 Junior members on a Commitee have... how much power?
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2011 05:03 PM (AdK6a)

Um, "junior members" don't get to become "senior members" if they aren't on the damn committee to begin with.

"Junior members" can make noise. Jeff Flake finally gets on after years of begging to go there, knowing he'll make no friends and lose most votes but he knows the power of being there and making trouble.

Who is going to have his back?

44 We always have plan B. It worked in Kampuchea.

45

I'm MUCH more politicaly aware than the average citizen... and yet I could not even tell you who is ON the Appropriations Committee, let alone how they voted on individual things...

--

Then where's the political risk?

---

But Government Oversite??? Its going to be on TV a LOT it looks like

---

Or is it less about risk or effectiveness and more about getting on tv?  

Your argument is contradictory.  And I think you're underestimating the ability of the freshmen Tea Partiers to get the message out through new media; as well as the effort people who voted for them will make to confirm that their reps are doing what they promised to do. 

46 36 Did I miss that from the article?

I thought it was Issa's committee - the one that investigates stuff.

I'm certainly investigating stuff! I'm going to get to the bottom of the scandal of White House staffers leaving their cars unlocked in the West Wing parking lot

47 Whatever happened to conservative plans to get rid of the DOEd, the EPA, OSHA, etc, etc, etc?

Not only are liberals better at infiltrating and subverting, they're better at keeping their promises.

48 Well couple that with the "max one committee" rule and it makes perfect sense.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2011 05:05 PM (T0NGe)

There is no "max one" committee rule.

I think there's a max one "major" committee limit but that's not the same.

Chris Gibson from NY-23 (generally a good tea party guy) is on Armed Services and Agriculture. He's a retired Army Lt. Col and his district has lots of dairy farms (bad news...tea party or no, he'll be fighting for dairy subsidies).

49

The more weak kneed RINOs on the AC, the more we can primary their sorry butts in 2012. Sure, at least one TPer ought to take a seat there just to have some voice, but a couple of RINOs plus the full Dem side of the AC vote will move things out of committee.
 
Where the full House will then have to go on record. That should be the fun part of this.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the floor of the House where the rubber truly meets the road.  Being on a committee means shit if everything that comes out of it is voted down.  It's the floor vote that everyone pays attention to.

50

I think the report that Teabaggers are rejecting Appropriations Committee appointments is total bullshit.

It's a story choreographed to make everybody look good.

In reality the freshmen were prolly told to shut the F**k up or otherwise they would end up scooping BO dog shit off the White House lawn. And that they had zero chance to be appointed to the Appropriations Committee.

The power brokers in the GOP have always been quite capable of squelching any internal dissent.

51 Hey, my Congressman happily proclaims himself to be "Congressman NO" because he always says no when folks come asking him for money...

Culberson for Appropriations!

52

Egg on my face here folks.  I was thinking of that smarm Jake Tapper.

OK, my bad. Please insert Jake Tapper (West Hollywierd crowd easy) and take out Major Garrett.

Mea Culpa or as Steve Martin would say, mia culpa.

53 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2011 05:03 PM (AdK6a)

One more time: the amount of power they have is immaterial.  As is their ability actually to stop something in committee.  The point is two-fold: one, to be a constant reminder to the Establishment: Deal in Good Faith, or you may not return in 2015.  Two, to be able to sound the alert on particularly bad bills early to allow people to start screaming early.

Of course they'll lose in committee.  Heck, they'll probably lose on the floor more often than not.  If they'll stick to their guns, then they'll be doing what we sent them there to do.

And I don't care if they're "on TV."  I want them to roll up their sleeves, put on their rubber boots, and start the long process of cleaning the stable.  Since they don't have a handy hydra to slay, they'll have to do it the long way.  If we're lucky, they'll have until well past sundown to finish.

54 Jeff Flake finally gets on after years of begging to go there, knowing he'll make no friends and lose most votes but he knows the power of being there and making trouble.

+1

Flake, Hensarling and a handful of others were Tea Partiers before the term existed.

The new guys should be following their example, not avoiding a position because it might be too hard or risky.

55 Posted by: journolist at January 03, 2011 05:10 PM

Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!  ;-)

56 55 Posted by: journolist at January 03, 2011 05:10 PM

Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!  ;-)

Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2011 05:11 PM (IDL9N)

< Quite right, just noticed my clean up post was calling for the wrong insertion.

Is this a double entendre thing.  Do we need to call in Gabe?

57 Voting no on the AC will not shrink the Federal Government. Voting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will do that. Prep the battlefield first, and it will take years.

58

Your argument is contradictory.   

Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2011 05:07 PM (IDL9N)

 

Lets see... one committee where you will be on TV, and actually able to do somthing.

One Committee that IMO is doomed for failure because there is NO way the fundamental change needed for success will be allowed by either the House Leadership, or the Whitehouse.

How is that contradictory?

59 I think the report that Teabaggers are rejecting Appropriations Committee appointments is total bullshit.
 
Actually that story has been circulating since November.

60 I don't think Appropriations is where the big battles will be fought anyway. A lot of money goes through there, a lot you can point your way and skim some off. But it's nothing compared to defense and entitlements.

61 Voting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will do that.

And if you think anyone is going to do that straight out of the gate, you're in as fantastical a land as those who believed in "Obama money."

The only power of consequence Republicans have at the moment is the ability to set the budget.  That means defunding things, that means stopping appropriations (when possible) before they get started.  "Voting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS..." won't happen for at least one more term, and probably more than that.

About the only thing the Tea Party Republicans can right now is make noise.  A perch in the Appropriations Committee would be a great one from which to squawk as loudly as possible.

62 You know what we need?  A budget paring committee.

So Appropriations passes the spending.

Then...it goes to another committee, call it anti-Appropriations.  They cannot add a dime, they can only cut.

Then it goes to the floor.

63 Voting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will do that.

Prep the battlefield first, and it will take years.

Posted by: eman at January 03, 2011 05:13 PM (+iY8m) 

Uhm.  How about just voting to fix M, M, and SS?  Probably be more popular with the voters.  Even the TEA Party likes SS.

64

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 03, 2011 05:10 PM (8y9MW)

Guys choice in the article was between Gov Oversite, where he can investigate, and maybe do some good.

Or be a mouthpiece for the opposition, but ineffective, on Appropriations...

Oh... and by being on Appropirations... would have to vote out all the spending Bills in just a couple of months, without time to really do the job correctly (it will all be done by Staff).

65 Voting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will do that. And if you think anyone is going to do that straight out of the gate, you're in as fantastical a land as those who believed in "Obama money." The only power of consequence Republicans have at the moment is the ability to set the budget. That means defunding things, that means stopping appropriations (when possible) before they get started. "Voting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS..." won't happen for at least one more term, and probably more than that. About the only thing the Tea Party Republicans can right now is make noise. A perch in the Appropriations Committee would be a great one from which to squawk as loudly as possible. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 03, 2011 05:17 PM (8y9MW) I said it would take years. My whole argument is the real problem is entitlements and attacking them takes a long time. You could steer the AC into saving $100 billions a year and guess what, we are still boned.

66 The beatings will continue until morale improves.

67 You know what we need?  A budget paring committee.

Hopefully that's how the Budget Committee will work under Paul Ryan.

68 Then...it goes to another committee, call it anti-Appropriations.  They cannot add a dime, they can only cut.

Then it goes to the floor.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2011 05:18 PM (T0NGe)

 

ewwwww.. I like that idea...

How about another Committee... called the Stupid Law Committee... which goes back and writes individual little fixes for all the stuff the Big Omnibus Laws F up? (things like the Healthcare 1099 requirement)...

69 Uhm. How about just voting to fix M, M, and SS? Probably be more popular with the voters. Even the TEA Party likes SS. Posted by: FUBAR at January 03, 2011 05:19 PM (McG46) Fix them? How? The Feds should not be doing these things in the first place.

70 Posted by: FUBAR at January 03, 2011 05:19 PM (McG46)

Besides the fact that two of the three are Ponzi Schemes and can't be fixed? Nothing I guess.  Though it would be nice to hear them spend the next two years making the case for ending all three (along with a plan to do just that).

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2011 05:19 PM (AdK6a)

So, you get to be on Gov Oversight where nothing will happen- because it never does, and on TV a lot.  Or you get to go fight for the principles on which you were ostensibly elected.  Yep, that's a hard choice.

As for having to do it in "just a couple months," I reject that.  A bill which funds only the barest of necessities for the government followed by separate bills funding each specific agency has already been a suggested tactic.  Doing so would prevent a Government Shut down and provide plenty of time to "do it right."

Further, the staff are going to do it all anyway (nature of the Beast).  So the correct answer there is to vet your staff appropriately and make sure you have staff that share your principles.

71 How about another Committee... called the Stupid Law Committee... which goes back and writes individual little fixes for all the stuff the Big Omnibus Laws F up? (things like the Healthcare 1099 requirement)...

I've heard of that in state legislatures.  They look for dead or outdated laws to repeal.  It's usually not so consequential, though.

72 I think Ace or whoever was right on the first posting of this story.  The drama is going to be coming out of Issa's committee, hopefully.  We can't vote on eliminating this pile of shit we're in by just picking out the pieces of corn.

73 Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2011 05:25 PM (8SOun)

I'll believe anything will come from that when I see it- and maybe not then, depending on who is reporting.

I trust the Tea Party voters to continue to support someone really fighting for their principles much more than I trust Congress to do anything about corruption in Washington.  Even with Tea Party Republicans on the Oversight Committee.

74 The drama is going to be coming out of Issa's committee, hopefully.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

75 Actually, I'm hoping a lot of hell will be raised by the new repubs. but I'm not holding my breath for anything of real reform to take place.  It's a good start, though.  Nothing much will get done that will make us happy until Dear Leader is run out on a rail.  We need a conservative prez and a somewhat conservative Senate and House (I'm a realist) to see the changes that need to happen.

76

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 03, 2011 05:24 PM (8y9MW)

 

Sorry, but the TEA party events I went to were as much about the UnConstitutional power grabs in Washington, as they were about Taxes.

So how are TAXES suddenly the ONLY job?

77 Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2011 05:39 PM (AdK6a)

Because the only thing that matters to the public at large (and, indeed, many Tea Partiers) is the economy- and killing some of the worst spending is the best way to help with that.  (Okay, maybe not "the best" but certainly a vital part)

And, as has been pointed out in numerous comments on numerous threads: the Oversight Committee will be a lot of talk, but not much action.  Until the Tea Party actually has clout, there's nothing they can do there, either.  Given that neither committee will accomplish what the voters want, it looks better to be the voice screaming "Stop spending!" than the voice that says "Bad Attorney General, no biscuit... but we don't actually have the power to do anything to you, so please tell the People you're sorry."

That's the other thing that is overlooked.  The House Oversight committee can't really do anything to Presidential staffers- even cabinet members &c.  They just don't have that kind of power over the Executive branch.  The Senate might (might) but the Senate is still Dem controlled and won't do anything anyway.

78 Then...it goes to another committee, call it anti-Appropriations.  They cannot add a dime, they can only cut.


Whoa.

79 In fact, an Appropriations seat may become even more important in an era of austerity and fiscal responsibility.  With fewer discretionary dollars available, the power to decide who gets them is a strong power to wield.

80

input this URL:
(   http://www.1shopping.us/   )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
FREE SHIPPING
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

81

www.fashionspaceonline.com  is one of the great resource for brand new fashionable clothing, shoes and accessories.
Here are the main products that we deal with:

 

Shoes: Nike Air Jordan, Air Force 1, Nike Air Jordan AFJ Fusion, Dunk SB, Nike Air Max, Air Shox Running Shoes, Nike Air Zoom Dunkesto, Air Yeezy, Nike Work Boots, ACG, Nike Foamposite, Gucci, Prada, Puma Ferrari, Supra, Ato Matsumoto, Lacoste, James, Kobe, Converse, Creative Recreation, CR DICOCO, Ed hardy, Evisu, Mauri, Coogi, Dsquared, Ice Cream, New Balance, Greedy Genius, Clae Shoes and Sneakers.

 

Jeans: Evisu, Gucci, Armani, Bape BBC, Red Monkey, G-Star, Levis, Diesel, Versace, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Ed Hardy, True Religion, Coogi, Christian Audigier, Affliction, Laguna Beach, Iceberg, Crown Holder, Roca wear, Dolce & Gabbana, Artful Dodger, Blac Label, Rock & Republic Jeans Shorts and Pants.

 

T-shirt: BBC, Bape, G-Star, Evisu, Coogi, Armani, LV, 5ive jungle, Akademiks, Smet, A & F, Affliction, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier, Blac Label, Polo, Lacoste, Crown Holder, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Ecko, Gucci, Adidas, Nike, Levis T-shirts and dress shirts.

Other Accessories: Chanel, Chloe, Coach, Dior, Gucci, Fendi, LV, Juicy, Prada, D&G, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Leather Handbag, Purse and Wallets.
Rolex, Breitlint, JACOB & CO. Cartier, Gucci, Ed Hardy Watches.
D&G, Okley, Fendi, Coach, Chanel, Gucci, Prada, Armani, Versace, Burberry, Ray.Ban, Ed hardy, Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Cartier Sun Glasses
Armani, CK, D&G, LV, Versace, Ed Hardy, Diesel, Gucci, polo, Prada, Puma, Versace, G-star Underwears.
Juicy, Bikini, Ed Hardy, A&F, Polo, Christian Audigier Swimming Wear, Bikini, Bathing suits.
Bape, Ed Hardy, New Era, Coogi, Gucci, New era with light, Louis Vuitton, Monster Energy Caps
DSQ, D&G, LV, Bape, Armani, Gucci, Chanel, Boss, Affliction, Versace, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Belts.
Welcome to contact us by MSN: babydress898@hotmail.com .Thanks!