Senate's plan: let's bribe a few congressmen with billions more dollars
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/...ncial_meltdown

Incredible.

If this thing passes, there will be hell to pay. Mark my words.

Ugh. This is painful to watch.

They don't even see the need to pretend they're being principled. They're just telling the press, "We're going to go buy off enough of those recalcitrant ones."

Where are they going to get the money? Record deficits, so I guess the thinking is, a trillion here, a trillion there, who cares?

I guess a people does get the government it deserves.

I listened to McCain on NPR this morning defending the bailout. He sounded so awful. Right now, I really hate him. He has become the face of this bailout, and that is probably the worst political blunder I have seen in my lifetime. Screw him.

The Corner posted an alleged partial list of some of the earmarks in this bill, and asks, "Isn’t this in John McCain’s wheelhouse?"

John was on national radio this morning in support of the bailout. I think he is trying to push it through. Who knows maybe he is adding earmarks right now.

Governors can't add earmarks in federal legislation.

Is this even constitutional? Revenue bills are supposed to originate in the House, not the Senate. The House rejected their bill. Any new bailout bill needs to be voted on first by the House.

Am I missing something?

Couric: Do you know where DC is?
Palin: Of course.
Couric: Could you show me on a map?
Palin: I know where DC is, Katie. I've been there.
Couric: I have a map right here ... can you just point it out?
Cali Coug: OMG!!! She doesn't even know where DC is!!! LOL!!!

ZING!

Get Tex to the burn unit...STAT! He's going to need extra gauze.

I'm not sure what Venkman means by "revenue bill" but appropriations bills do and must start in the House. I don't know how this can be called anything but appropriations, so I am likewise interested to hear how they've gotten around that.

It's all ball bearings, guys.

"perhaps you could use a refresher course...."

All right! Tex shows some life and busts out a Fletch reference....and a good one, at that. Nice job.

Welcome to Earth, Tex. Remove your data chip and feel free to participate more often! I have a feeling you have some decent material.

The Constitution refers to revenue bill, so it depends on what the meaning of revenue bill is. I would think that $700b spending would fall under the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Seems like the house is being strong armed to me, and I'm not sure this is all on the up and up, constitutionally.

Of course, we've been getting around, or just ignoring, that pesky document for years now, so whether it's kosher or not is probably irrelevant at this point.

Hmm, interesting. Looks like I need a refresher myself.

A quick look on Wikipedia offers this explanation for how it might work:

So perhaps the Senate is permitted to draft revenue-related legislation and then just "attach" it to whatever equivalent bill is coming out of the House, for conference.

I think this is right. A spending or taxation "bill" can originate in the Senate, in a non-binding form, almost like a resolution, but it doesn't mean a damn thing until the House takes up & passes that bill or something closely related, after which it goes to conference, etc.

A spending or taxation bill that originates & stays in the Senate is not binding, at all.