Skip to main content

According to Senate Republicans, Americans don't need to improve the safety of our food supply by increasing the number of food inspections, despite recent outbreaks of food borne diseases and warnings by the USDA about food safety?

What's surprising about this particular action by Senate Republicans is that it is occurring now after the same food safety bill was previously approved by the House and Senate earlier this month but failed the Constitutional requirement that bills that raise revenue originate in the House of Representatives.

The bill, designed to increase government inspections of the food supply in the wake of recent deadly food borne disease outbreaks, originally passed with wide support in the both chambers. However, it needs approval again because it violated a Constitutional requirement that bills that raise revenue initiate in the House.

The House approved a new bill identical to same bill the Senate approved and sent it back to the Senate for a re-vote.  So what changed between the time this food safety bill, which had huge bi-partisan support when was originally passed by the Senate on December 1st of this year (by a 73-25 vote) and today?  Why was a bill approved by almost three fourths of the Senate (including many Republicans) suddenly become a bad bill in the minds of all Senate Republicans?   Very good question.

Then again, why did the Republicans vote to deny health care and other benefits to the 9/11 Responders?  Why are they (including Mr. Maverick himself, John McCain) threatening a government shutdown by refusing to pass an omnibus spending bill that would continue the operation of the Federal Government bills the week before Christmas?

We know they claim its all about saving money, but if that was the case why didn't they shut down the government during the Bush years when the government was literally losing money to massive waste and fraud by defense contractors in Iraq and elsewhere?  We kniow they claim to be are upset about $8 Billion Dollars in earmarks in the current 1.1. Trillion spending bill, but if that is the case, why did they vote for all those billions of dollars of earmarks during the Bush Presidency?

In short, why are the Republicans playing games over federal spending now when the very same issues over earmarks (which were much more massive back in the Bush years) did not concern them back when they controlled Congress?

In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion "to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994." In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills.

Well, I think you know the answer to those questions.

A confluence of facts and events helped McConnell convince senior appropriators in his own party -- people who, like he, don't fundamentally oppose the earmarking process -- to back off the omnibus, according to a Republican leadership aide. Part of it was that, though bipartisan, the bill itself included funding for key Democratic priorities that in the current political environment no Republican supports, or wants to be accused of supporting. The omnibus included $1 billion in spending to implement the health care law -- a provision no Republican wanted to de facto support.

Tax cuts for a few thousand Billionaires and Multi-Millionaires that will increase the deficit by 80 Billion dollars in 2011 alone?  "Yes, or else," say the Republicans.  Spending a comparatively measly $1 Billion health care reform that will help millions of non-miilionaires, people desperately in need of better health benefits?  Absolutely not! say the Republicans.

And helping 9/11 responders who risked their lives and suffered the consequences, and improving food safety for all Americans?  "Too costly," say the Republicans

Tell me again, who exactly is waging class warfare here?

And Mr. Broder, how exactly to you imagine your cloud-cuckoo land vision of centrist bipartisanship can ever come to pass when the current crop of extremist Republicans are acting to sabotage even bills that no one in their right mind should oppose?

Hey, inquiring minds want to know.

Originally posted to Steven D on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:23 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

    by Steven D on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:23:59 AM PST

  •  If it don't feed greed, they don't vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery, Oh Mary Oh

    Wow! The Republicans are really screwing up this country!

  •  Even Many of the Pessimists Here Will be Shocked (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man, phonegery

    when the new year gets underway.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:40:26 AM PST

  •  Steven - Why a new vote? (0+ / 0-)

    If the House passed a bill that was identical to an earlier bill that had passed the Senate it would not need to go back to the Senate. Something in the House bill isn't the same or it would be on its way to the President.

    On the broader issue of lame duck sessions. The few weeks that the old Congress is in session, after an election and  before the new Congress takes office in early January, was never intended to pass substantive legislation. The Dems controlled the floor in both the House and Senate for the past two years and the fact that they kicked so many major issues into the lame duck is inexcusable. They have no one to blame but themselves that the clock is running out on some major issues.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:41:27 AM PST

    •  The bill originated in the Senate (0+ / 0-)

      So the Senate had to re-vote, or vote for the first time on the House Bill.  The original bill voted on in the Senate was a nullity under the Constitution.  The House had to sponsor a "new bill" vote and then send it back to the Senate.

      After a 73-25 vote everyone expected the bill to pass again in the Senate.

      The bill did not change.

      The Republicans changed.

      "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

      by Steven D on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  StevenD - thanks for your reply (0+ / 0-)

        However, I am still confused. I know there are certain kinds of bills, such as bills related to taxing and spending, that must originate in the House. I am curious why this bill was a "nulity"? I am guessing that in addition to the regulatory issues there were revenue and spending items. Is that the case?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:43:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Also - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man

    Child Marriage Prevention Act

    When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. - Sinclair Lewis

    by RhodaA on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:41:34 AM PST

    •  To say "that's pretty fucked up" just (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk, RhodaA

      underlines what we already know about Republican leadership. Besides, it probably effects the polygamist vote in Utah.

      "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."

      by the fan man on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 07:34:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The smell of lobbyists' money, now available in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    scented candle form, has all but erased the stench of food poisonings and tainted food from Republican senses.

    "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."

    by the fan man on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 07:26:44 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site