[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)[/quote]

I suspect, and this is really no more than that, that the commission intentionally did not vote or file the report timely, so that no formal proposal would be made to congress. Most of those on the commission were either current or former members of congress. I’m guessing they didn’t really want to force congress to address so many of these hyper controversial issues. That, in my opinion anyway, was the extent of the bi-partisanship. They were united in avoiding the subject.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)[/quote]

I suspect, and this is really no more than that, that the commission intentionally did not vote or file the report timely, so that no formal proposal would be made to congress. Most of those on the commission were either current or former members of congress. I’m guessing they didn’t really want to force congress to address so many of these hyper controversial issues. That, in my opinion anyway, was the extent of the bi-partisanship. They were united in avoiding the subject.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)[/quote]

I suspect, and this is really no more than that, that the commission intentionally did not vote or file the report timely, so that no formal proposal would be made to congress. Most of those on the commission were either current or former members of congress. I’m guessing they didn’t really want to force congress to address so many of these hyper controversial issues. That, in my opinion anyway, was the extent of the bi-partisanship. They were united in avoiding the subject.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)[/quote]

I suspect, and this is really no more than that, that the commission intentionally did not vote or file the report timely, so that no formal proposal would be made to congress. Most of those on the commission were either current or former members of congress. I’m guessing they didn’t really want to force congress to address so many of these hyper controversial issues. That, in my opinion anyway, was the extent of the bi-partisanship. They were united in avoiding the subject.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
I never questioned the constitutional process as a law can’t be official unless it goes through this process. You seem to think that there was actually time to debate the bill that NO ONE read and didn’t know what was in it but had to vote on it in order to “pass the bill so we know what is in the bill”. I wonder if you will be so accepting when the tables are turned. So much for promises of bills be put on the internet for all the public to read for x amount of days before they are signed into law.[/quote]

I read it. In its entirety. Numerous versions had been available online for more than 6 months. All of the markups were availabe the day after the various committees and conferences approved them. The full bill was available 48 hours before the vote. Anyone that didn’t read it, didn’t make the effort.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
I never questioned the constitutional process as a law can’t be official unless it goes through this process. You seem to think that there was actually time to debate the bill that NO ONE read and didn’t know what was in it but had to vote on it in order to “pass the bill so we know what is in the bill”. I wonder if you will be so accepting when the tables are turned. So much for promises of bills be put on the internet for all the public to read for x amount of days before they are signed into law.[/quote]

I read it. In its entirety. Numerous versions had been available online for more than 6 months. All of the markups were availabe the day after the various committees and conferences approved them. The full bill was available 48 hours before the vote. Anyone that didn’t read it, didn’t make the effort.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
I never questioned the constitutional process as a law can’t be official unless it goes through this process. You seem to think that there was actually time to debate the bill that NO ONE read and didn’t know what was in it but had to vote on it in order to “pass the bill so we know what is in the bill”. I wonder if you will be so accepting when the tables are turned. So much for promises of bills be put on the internet for all the public to read for x amount of days before they are signed into law.[/quote]

I read it. In its entirety. Numerous versions had been available online for more than 6 months. All of the markups were availabe the day after the various committees and conferences approved them. The full bill was available 48 hours before the vote. Anyone that didn’t read it, didn’t make the effort.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
I never questioned the constitutional process as a law can’t be official unless it goes through this process. You seem to think that there was actually time to debate the bill that NO ONE read and didn’t know what was in it but had to vote on it in order to “pass the bill so we know what is in the bill”. I wonder if you will be so accepting when the tables are turned. So much for promises of bills be put on the internet for all the public to read for x amount of days before they are signed into law.[/quote]

I read it. In its entirety. Numerous versions had been available online for more than 6 months. All of the markups were availabe the day after the various committees and conferences approved them. The full bill was available 48 hours before the vote. Anyone that didn’t read it, didn’t make the effort.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
I never questioned the constitutional process as a law can’t be official unless it goes through this process. You seem to think that there was actually time to debate the bill that NO ONE read and didn’t know what was in it but had to vote on it in order to “pass the bill so we know what is in the bill”. I wonder if you will be so accepting when the tables are turned. So much for promises of bills be put on the internet for all the public to read for x amount of days before they are signed into law.[/quote]

I read it. In its entirety. Numerous versions had been available online for more than 6 months. All of the markups were availabe the day after the various committees and conferences approved them. The full bill was available 48 hours before the vote. Anyone that didn’t read it, didn’t make the effort.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.[/quote]

Maybe I was just being too technical. Besides the issuance of the report coming after the commission expired, the report failed to get sufficient votes from commission members to approve the report. Which is why it disappeared so quickly, no formal recommendation was made to congress.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.[/quote]

Maybe I was just being too technical. Besides the issuance of the report coming after the commission expired, the report failed to get sufficient votes from commission members to approve the report. Which is why it disappeared so quickly, no formal recommendation was made to congress.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.[/quote]

Maybe I was just being too technical. Besides the issuance of the report coming after the commission expired, the report failed to get sufficient votes from commission members to approve the report. Which is why it disappeared so quickly, no formal recommendation was made to congress.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.[/quote]

Maybe I was just being too technical. Besides the issuance of the report coming after the commission expired, the report failed to get sufficient votes from commission members to approve the report. Which is why it disappeared so quickly, no formal recommendation was made to congress.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.[/quote]

Maybe I was just being too technical. Besides the issuance of the report coming after the commission expired, the report failed to get sufficient votes from commission members to approve the report. Which is why it disappeared so quickly, no formal recommendation was made to congress.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]UCGAL shhhhh…

Representatives swooshed that report under the rug really quick. The problem was that the report actually mad a hell of alot of sense but nobody has the stomach for it.[/quote]

the commission never issued a report.

[Author]

Posts