Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts

Mar 9, 2026

Today's Erika

Voting YES would refer the matter to committee, which effectively kills it.

It's dead now - by a vote of 357 - 65




House kills effort to release all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., had forced the vote in light of allegations that her Republican colleague Tony Gonzales of Texas sent sexual text messages to a subordinate.

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday voted to scuttle an effort by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace to shed more light on sexual misconduct allegations against members of Congress.

Mace, a conservative Republican who is running to be governor of South Carolina, forced a floor vote on her resolution directing the House Ethics Committee to make public all reports on allegations of congressional lawmakers and aides engaging in sexual misconduct or harassment.

But in a 357-65 vote, the House voted to refer the Mace resolution to committee — a move that effectively killed it.

The Ethics Committee had encouraged members to vote to refer the resolution. In a joint statement, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee argued it "could chill victim cooperation and witness participation in ongoing and future investigations" and would make it harder for the committee "to investigate and eliminate sexual misconduct in the House."

“Here and elsewhere, perpetrators of sexual misconduct should never be shielded from responsibility for their misdeeds,” Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., and ranking member Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., said.

But, they added, “victims may be retraumatized by public disclosures of interim work product, excerpts of interview transcripts, and certain exhibits. And witnesses, who often only speak to the Committee confidentially or on condition of future anonymity, could fear retaliation if their cooperation is made public.”

Mace has spoken openly about her own experiences as a sexual assault survivor, and she’s been at the center of the fight over releasing the government’s Jeffrey Epstein files. She was one of just four House Republicans who teamed with Democrats on a discharge petition last fall that circumvented her own GOP leadership and eventually led to the Justice Department’s release of the Epstein files.

She said her resolution came after NBC News and other outlets reported that a GOP colleague, Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas, had sent sexual text messages to a female aide, Regina Santos-Aviles, with whom he allegedly had an affair before she died by suicide last year. Gonzales previously denied having an affair but has not addressed the substance of the allegations since the text messages came to light.

Mace is among several Republicans who have called on Gonzales to resign.

“I would like members of Congress to tell their female colleagues where they stand on sexual harassment within the U.S. House of Representatives,” Mace told reporters. “Do you support women up here, that work up here, and who are your colleagues, or do you not?”

Earlier Wednesday, the House Ethics panel said it will open an investigation into the allegations against Gonzales. House rules explicitly prohibit lawmakers from engaging in relationships with their own staff members.

In a brief statement, Gonzales said of the Ethics probe: “I welcome the opportunity to present all the facts to the committee.”

In Tuesday night's primary in Texas, Gonzales was forced into a May runoff election against GOP challenger Brandon Herrera.

Sen Kaine


Tim Kaine has been largely stuck in my craw for a long time. He's the kind of Democrat that has never really delivered for me. I truly appreciate that he's a genuinely decent man, but he's taking forever to show me that he realizes the severity of the threat posed by Republicans and MAGA and Trump.

Under "normal" circumstances, I'm OK with him being Mr Congeniality, but these current circumstances are anything but normal.

It's a brick fight, Democrats
Throw some fuckin' bricks

He finally gets to it with this Colby guy - and I'm glad for that. I just wish now that he'd learn to stop smiling when does get to it.


Feb 6, 2026

Calling His Bluff

Jagoff Congress Critters like James Comer seem to think their job is to make life shitty for people, and get a good video clip for DumFux News.

With all the shit the Republicans have been piling on the Clintons for 35 years, they must believe the Epstein files thing is either just the latest thing they can use to embarrass them with, or to distract and deflect - "it's really all about Slick Willy!!!"

It's like they don't know who they're fuckin' with.

I expect not to be surprised if Bill and Hillary end up doing their thing via Questionnaire, or if Comer decides he really doesn't want to risk what happens if he opens that can of worms in public, and calls the whole thing off.


As Clintons prepare to answer questions about Epstein, Trump balks

Republican Rep. James Comer opened a door that has long been closed. His party might come to regret the decision.


It’s never been altogether clear why Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, launched a crusade to get Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify as part of his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation. But the Kentucky Republican did it anyway, even issuing first-of-their-kind subpoenas to compel the Democrats’ testimony.

When the Clintons resisted the cheap, partisan tactics, Comer upped the ante, scheduled a contempt hearing and set the stage for a possible criminal process. The former Democratic president and former secretary of state, left with little choice, ultimately acquiesced.

There’s still some question about how the next steps will unfold, though Hillary Clinton sent an interesting rhetorical shot across Comer’s bow on Thursday morning. “For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith,” she wrote online. “We told them what we know, under oath. They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”

“So let’s stop the games,” Hillary Clinton added. “If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it — in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”

The hapless committee chairman hasn’t yet responded, but in the meantime, there’s also a larger context to all of this. The New York Times reported that no former president has ever been compelled to testify to Congress under subpoena, and Comer has set a precedent his party might ultimately come to regret.

Members of Congress don’t necessarily think that is a good thing; they want the ability to bring in former presidents when they are relevant witnesses and may have something meaningful to say. And Mr. Comer’s move was a rare power play by a Republican lawmaker at a time when the G.O.P.-led House and Senate have ceded much of their power to the White House.

But his accomplishment also amounted to a remarkable use of government power to target a political adversary — the kind seen more often in autocratic societies where a peaceful transfer of power is not a given because leaders fear ending up in prison after leaving office. And it was one that some experts said further chipped away at the country’s democratic norms.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Times that “like all powers of Congress or any other branch, these are powers that can be abused. We’re living in a period of spectacular abuse of power.”

That’s true, though it’s also true that now that the door is open, others can walk through it.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told the Times: “There’s no question that Oversight Democrats will want to speak to Donald Trump and others. That is a precedent that has now been set by Comer and House Republicans.”

It was against this backdrop that NBC News’ Tom Llamas reminded the incumbent president: “Democrats are already saying if you bring President Bill Clinton and he has to testify, we’re bringing President Trump.” Before the anchor could finish his question about this, Trump interjected.

“Well, I think they might say that, you know? But they’ve already brought me. See, I’ve been brought,” the president replied. “They had me indicted, many, many times. Many, many times.”

Like so many of the president’s comments, this didn’t make any sense at all — congressional Democrats had nothing to do with the many criminal charges Trump has faced — though the response suggested he’s not at all eager to answer questions about Epstein, even if subpoenaed in future years, and even if the Clintons cooperate.

Watch this space.

Dec 7, 2025

Guess Who

  • 36 accused of spouse abuse
  • 7 arrested for fraud
  • 19 accused of writing bad checks
  • 117 bankrupted companies
  • 3 convicted of, and done time, for assault
  • 71 can't qualify for a credit card
  • 14 arrested on drug-related charges
  • 8 arrested for shoplifting
  • 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
  • 84 arrested for drunk driving in the last year
These numbers are not about people off the streets in "blue cities", and they're not about spoiled pampered brats in pro sports, and they're not ancient history.

These are numbers from the 535 Congress Critters we've got on our payroll right now.

Nov 20, 2025

Another'n



Democrats win another discharge petition, this time to force vote on federal worker bargaining rights

Legislation to restore union rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers is headed for a House vote.

The bill is opposed by the GOP leaders who control the lower chamber, but a bipartisan group of lawmakers this week very quietly secured the required 218 signatures on a discharge petition to sidestep Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and force the proposal to the floor.

The breakthrough, which was overshadowed by the week’s intense focus on the Jeffrey Epstein saga, sets the stage for the House to pass legislation returning the collective bargaining rights to federal employees who were stripped of those powers under an executive order signed by President Trump earlier in the year.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), the lead sponsor of the legislation, said House rules will allow him to call the bill for a vote as early as Dec. 2.

Labor supporters celebrated the development, with some hammering Trump and GOP leaders for attacking working-class people during a period when economic anxieties are already prevalent. They’re eager to highlight the issue with a House vote — and predict it will pass easily on the floor.

“Speaker Johnson is required, pursuant to the discharge petition, to set in motion an up-or-down vote on restoring collective bargaining for hardworking federal employees,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol. “And that’s a bipartisan discharge petition that will trigger that vote, so we know the votes exist in the House of Representatives.”

The discharge petition, championed by Golden and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), was introduced in June but was short of the 218 signatures needed to compel consideration of the underlying bill. That changed on Monday, when a pair of New York Republicans — Reps. Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler — endorsed the petition, which had been stuck at 216 signatures for more than two months.

The success of the petition is the latest setback for Trump, Johnson and other GOP leaders, who were forced by another discharge petition to swallow legislation this week forcing the Justice Department to release the full Epstein files — a bill Trump had fervently opposed.

The triumph of the back-to-back petitions has raised questions about Trump’s powers of influence over a House GOP conference he has typically bent to his will. But GOP supporters of the Golden petition said the pushback is not only justified, but constructive.

Rep. Don Bacon (Neb.), one of five GOP lawmakers who endorsed the petition, suggested the rogue Republicans were doing Trump a favor by strengthening the image of the party in the eyes of the labor movement.

“I think we have to force the issue on the president and the leadership. … It’s for the president’s own good,” Bacon said. “For him to rip up an agreement, I think it undermines him in the labor community.”

The legislation might not arrive, however, as a stand-alone bill. That’s because bipartisan negotiators are working separately to install the collective bargaining language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual Pentagon budget package. Because the NDAA is expected to pass through both chambers of Congress next month, Golden and other supporters of his bill see that as the preferred vehicle for securing the restoration of bargaining rights, which might be too controversial on their own to pass through the Senate.

“Right now, the language to restore those rights is in the NDAA, but there’s still negotiations [over] whether it’s going to stay in,” LaLota said. “So those who are righteous about this issue generally don’t want there to be a vote right now [on the Golden bill], and want to preserve the good faith that’s in the negotiations in the NDAA.”

“This is language that is in the NDAA already, that we’re just hoping doesn’t get stripped out.”

If it does get stripped out, it would almost certainly compel Golden to lean on the discharge petition to force a vote on his stand-alone bill.

If GOP leaders try to undermine the discharge petition in a rule, as they did earlier in the year on a successful petition related to proxy voting, Republicans say they’re ready to sink that rule to ensure the bargaining bill reaches the floor. Bacon noted six Republicans had initially blocked a GOP rule in September to leverage win concessions from Republican leaders on tariff policy.

“We let them know that’s not acceptable, so I hope they don’t do that,” Bacon said. “I mean, this is why we have a discharge petition process.”

“There will have to be a vote on it,” he added, “one way or the other way.”

At issue is an executive order, signed by Trump in March, that prohibits collecting bargaining for hundreds of thousands of federal employees across 18 federal agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services.

In a fact sheet accompanying the announcement, the White House said certain unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda” and argued the change was necessary to protect national security.

“President Trump is taking action to ensure that agencies vital to national security can execute their missions without delay and protect the American people,” the fact sheet reads. “The President needs a responsive and accountable civil service to protect our national security.”

Critics of the executive order have rejected the national security argument, noting that many of the affected federal employees work in industries that directly bolster the armed services and border security.

Others said they simply opposed the idea of scrapping a deal after it had been negotiated.

“When you have a labor agreement and then you just rip it up, it’s not right. And that’s essentially what President Trump did,” Bacon said. “When you sign an agreement, you live by it.”

The final stretch toward 218 signatures was not without some drama.

Lawler was in the hunt to be the 218th lawmaker to endorse the petition, putting it over the top, and had expected a House newcomer, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), to provide the 217th signature shortly after she was sworn in on Nov. 12.

Grijalva, however, was at the center of the weeks-long fight to be the 218th signature on the Epstein petition, which was delayed because Johnson refused to swear her in during the long government shutdown. With the government reopened last week, Democratic leaders wanted to keep the focus of Grijalva’s arrival squarely on the Epstein issue, and encouraged her to sign only the Epstein petition on the day she was seated, lest they dilute their own message. The others — including Golden’s petition and one sponsored by Jeffries to extend ObamaCare subsidies — could come later.

The delay drew howls from some of the New York Republicans, who accused Jeffries of delaying the process at the expense of federal workers.

Democrats, however, see the controversy as a victory, since it was not only Lawler who signed Golden’s petition this week, but LaLota as well — an additional Republican likely to help advance the bill if it comes to the floor on its own. That extra cushion could prove crucial, because one of the Democrats on the petition, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (N.J.), is expected to resign from the House on Thursday following her victory this month to become New Jersey’s next governor.

“Importantly, Democrats have ensured that there is now sufficient bipartisan support to withstand any procedural motions that try and kill this successful discharge petition,” Christie Stephenson, a Jeffries spokesperson, said Wednesday.

Oct 29, 2025

Today's Belle

Pointing out that Senate Republicans are trying some kind of end-around - and failing, because their word is worth nothing as of the last time they tried this shit, and they're working for Trump, whose word has never been worth the effort it takes to piss on it.



Oct 14, 2025

Today's Robert

"... and if the lights go out for a while, fuck it. So be it. The truth shines brightest in the dark anyway."


Oct 1, 2025

It Gets Weirder

There's no way for me to either confirm (or disprove) any of this, but Tizzyent has been pretty good at doing that kind of thing, and he seems pretty convinced. So I can weight this to the positive side, even though large grains of salt are in order.


Sep 27, 2025

Stalling

It's Trump's favorite play. Use every trick in the book to push your responsibilities out - to buy time, hoping people will stop thinking about it, or that somebody will come up with some bullshit that gets you off the hook.


Sep 24, 2025

Got It

Kelly Thompson is a recovering Republican - switched in 2016 - running to flip a red seat in Indiana's 3rd district.




Aug 28, 2025

Today's Belle

Republicans know they've got a real turkey on their hands, so they're thinking about changing the name to something they can use to scam the rubes with - again.

The Working Family Tax Cuts Law


Belle has several suggestions for alternate names, and I'm going to send them mine too.
  • The Big Bamboozle Bill
  • The Grandma Lives With You Now Bill
  • The Boosting American Poverty and Crime Act
  • The Yacht-Buyer Benefits Package
  • The Busting Hospitals Act
  • The Fuck The Farmers Initiative
  • The Billionaires Win Again Bill
  • The Dead Americans Non-Prevention Act

Jul 15, 2025

Today's Moment Of Shame

There are plenty of times when congress critters like to do things just because it'll embarrass the president.

This is kinda like that, except for the part about a president who likes to fuck girls who haven't come of age - a president who likely broke the law and did pretty much exactly what he's spent the last 10 years accusing his opponents of doing.

Hard to say how MAGA is going to react to their guys in congress moving officially to block the release when half of them have benefited from this horseshit for years too.

Every accusation is a confession.




Jul 4, 2025

The One Big Butt-Ugly Bamboozle

And this is just the tax stuff.


How Trump’s big bill will affect you, from Medicaid cuts to tax credits

The legislation has big implications for seniors, families, Medicaid recipients, immigrants and others.


Congress has signed off on a $3.4 trillion legislative package featuring new tax breaks, spending cuts, and more funding for defense and immigration enforcement, delivering President Donald Trump his “big, beautiful bill” despite rumblings from fiscal hawks about the projected $4 trillion it could add to the national debt over the next decade.

The expansive bill will affect nearly every American, regardless of their stage in life or income level. Here’s how it looks:

Seniors

Taxes: Middle-income seniors reaped one of the biggest tax breaks in the legislation — a new $6,000 deduction ($12,000 for a couple) for those 65 and older who earn as much as $75,000 per year (or $150,000 for a couple). The deduction decreases for higher earners, and it phases out altogether for singles who exceed $175,000 a year and couples after $250,000.

Health care: While many seniors rely on Medicare to cover their medical expenses, the federal health insurance program doesn’t cover long-term care. That means many older adults end up turning to Medicaid, the government health insurer for the poor, which covers more than 60 percent of the nation’s nursing home residents. The legislation’s deep cuts to Medicaid could force some nursing homes to shutter or scale back services, making it harder for seniors to find a spot in a facility.

Families

The bill includes several new and enhanced benefits for households with children, including:

Child tax credit: The tax credit is now $2,200 per child and will increase with inflation each year. But noncitizens are now barred from claiming it, even if their children are U.S.-born. And the legislation doesn’t include any changes for those whose incomes are too low to qualify for the full child tax credit — which means about 1 in 4 children.

$1,000 for babies: The legislation creates a tax-deferred investment account on behalf of children born from 2025 through 2028. The government will seed each one with $1,000, while parents, employers and nonprofits may also contribute to the accounts.

Adoption and parental leave: The bill bumps up the tax credit for filers who adopt a child to $5,000, which will also grow with inflation. It also expands small programs for businesses that provide parental leave and workplace day care programs.

Low-income households

Tax cuts: Without this bill, temporary tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term would have expired at the end of this year — driving up taxes for most households. Instead, the legislation will raise the standard deduction to $15,750 for an individual and $31,500 for a married couple, and will maintain the lower tax rates set in 2017.

Benefit cutbacks: The bill includes big cuts to health care programs such as Medicaid and anti-hunger initiatives such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Medicaid recipients could lose their coverage if they do not meet the program’s new work requirements or fail to regularly submit documentation proving they are working, volunteering or attending school at least 80 hours a month. And those in low-income households who are exempt from the Medicaid work requirements could still lose their health insurance if they don’t submit paperwork proving their exemption, such as pregnancy, a disability or certain types of caregiving.


Taken together, low-income households stand to lose more in benefits than they gain in tax breaks. A single parent who earns $20,000 a year, for instance, might save about $750 in taxes but lose benefits worth more than $1,600.

Middle-income households

Tax breaks: Families who don’t receive government assistance such as food stamps will mostly benefit from the tax cuts in the bill, including provisions to not tax certain overtime pay. Depending on where they live, some middle-income families will benefit from the higher limit on deducting state and local taxes from federal taxable income. After capping such deductions at $10,000 since 2017, the new bill raises that cap to $40,000 for households with income below $500,000, a boon to some families in high-tax states. But data shows that the SALT cap has always affected the rich much more than anyone else.

More middle-income families might choose to take advantage of a tax deduction rewarding charitable contributions, even for those who do not itemize on their returns.

For households squarely in the middle of the income distribution, those earning between $53,300 and $92,100, the average tax cut will be $1,510, according to analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).


High-income households

Bigger tax breaks: Wealthy people will get the biggest tax cuts from the bill by far. While low-income families will see a modest change in their tax bills, most high-income households will pay much less than they otherwise would have.


According to ITEP’s analysis, 72 percent of the value of the tax cuts will go to the top 20 percent of earners — those making more than $153,600 — and more than 20 percent of the cuts will go to the top 1 percent, those earning more than $916,900.

Medicaid patients

Lost health care: The bill slashes about $1 trillion from Medicaid — the largest cut in the program’s history — and at least 17 million Americans are projected to lose health coverage or insurance subsidies that make coverage affordable, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


Work requirements: The measure imposes work and reporting requirements for the first time on Medicaid recipients whose income is from 100 percent to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly $32,000 to $44,000 for a family of four). These are people who became eligible for Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program. Able-bodied adults between 19 and 64 years old will have to prove they are working, volunteering or going to school at least 80 hours a month. The bill provides exemptions for certain groups, including those who are pregnant, disabled or taking care of dependent children 13 or younger. States have to put these requirements in place by Dec. 31, 2026.

More documentation: Medicaid recipients will have to submit paperwork, such as pay stubs, proving they are meeting the work requirements. Even those who are exempt will have to demonstrate they are still eligible. Health care providers view these requirements as onerous and warn they will throw people off their coverage because many will struggle to stay on top of the paperwork or not even know about the change.

The bill requires states to do an extra eligibility check every six months, starting in 2027. That could open the door to people losing coverage midyear.

Tipped workers

Tax-free gratuities: The bill makes good on Trump’s campaign promise by excluding as much as $25,000 of tip income per year from taxation for workers earning as much as $150,000 ($300,000 for a couple). Those who exceed those pay levels would see a smaller deduction.

To ensure workers don’t reclassify income as tips to avoid paying taxes, the bill requires the Treasury Department to produce a list of professions that “customarily and regularly received tips” before the end of last year and will only allow workers in those fields to deduct their tips.

Immigrants

Tax credits disappear: Filers who don’t have Social Security numbers — generally noncitizens — can no longer claim the child tax credit even if their child is an American. Nor can they benefit from tax code changes that lift taxation on tips and overtime pay, or certain education credits under the bill.

College students

Education loans: The legislation repeals Biden-era student loan forgiveness programs. It also sets new repayment standards for borrowers, who make fixed payments for 10 to 25 years based on the terms of their loan. Under the means-tested plan, payments are between 1 and 10 percent of the principal, and borrowers can deduct $50 per payment for each of their dependents. Borrowers are rewarded for making on-time payments. Unpaid interest is waived, and the government will match $50 per payment on the loan principal. Any outstanding balance is forgiven after 30 years.

Jun 25, 2025

The Bloody Big Bamboozle Pared Down

When you sit down to do your budget, you prioritize the items on your list of things that are important - housing, groceries, transportation, etc.

If there's a few bucks left, you also decide what other stuff you might want to fund - savings, college fund for the kids, entertainment, travel, charities, church, etc.

After the essentials, you fund what matters to you. And that makes your budget a statement of your morality.



It should come as no surprise that Republicans don't give one empty fuck about anything but staying in power so they can put more Yacht Money in the very well-lined pockets of their fat cat "donors".

DONORS
RHYMES WITH
OWNERS


Senate parliamentarian’s no-go list: 12 pieces struck from Trump’s megabill

The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several controversial provisions in the GOP’s tax and spending package over the past few days.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) aims to have the “big, beautiful bill” on President Trump’s desk by July 4. But first, some of the megabill’s most controversial aspects must undergo the “Byrd bath,” a challenge of whether they are eligible under the Byrd Rule to be part of a reconciliation package that can pass with a 51-vote majority.

Republicans can still retool the provisions in an attempt to address the conflicts and resubmit them for review.

Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled several parts of the tax and spending legislation violate Senate rules and must taken out.

Here’s a look at what didn’t make the initial cut:

Change to Federal Employees Retirement System contributions
MacDonough ruled against language that proposed increasing the Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for new civil servants who refuse to become at-will employees. She argued the provision violates the Byrd Rule, which bars provisions that are considered “extraneous” to the federal budget.

State authorization to conduct border security and immigration enforcement
The megabill originally included language that gave states the authority to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, a responsibility that has traditionally fallen on the federal government. MacDonough rejected this language, ruling it violates the Byrd Rule.

Measure to limit court contempt powers
The parliamentarian rejected a measure in the bill that would have made it harder for courts to enforce lawsuits against the Trump administration. The measure targeted preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges against Trump’s executive orders and other directives. MacDonough argued that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump in contempt violates Senate rules.

Language barring noncitizens or permanent residents from receiving SNAP
Last week, MacDonough ruled against a measure that prevented immigrants who are not yet citizens or lawful permanent residents from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

She also rejected another SNAP-related provision that required states to pay a percentage of food assistance under SNAP depending on their individual error rates in delivering food aid. The provision required states to pay between 5 percent and 15 percent of food benefits in 2028, depending on their error rate. Nearly every state has had SNAP error rates of 6 percent or higher.

Extending the suspension of permanent price support authority
MacDonough pushed back against a Republican measure that sought to extend the suspension of permanent price authority, which has traditionally been a part of the farm bill.

The original bill had attempted to end a long-held farm bill practice in which farm commodity programs — the network of subsidies for products such as dairy, corn or rice — that underpin large-scale U.S. agriculture expire every few years, effectively forcing congressional Republicans back to the negotiating table annually to participate in the grand bargain of SNAP and conservation funding in return for farm welfare.

The measure knocked down by the parliamentarian would have extended those subsidies past their normal cutoff to expire in 2031 — which advocates of sustainable agriculture and SNAP warn would have removed any need for farm state legislators to pass any farm bill this decade, because they would have gotten what they needed.

While this would be within bounds of a normal farm bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that legislators couldn’t do it through reconciliation and would therefore need to come up with 60 votes.

Funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
MacDonough has ruled against a provision that would have essentially eliminated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by placing a cap on its funding. The provision would have lowered the agency’s maximum funding to zero percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses.

She also ruled against several other measures that fell under the control of the Senate Banking Committee, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. One would have cut $1.4 billion in federal costs by lowering the Federal Reserve staff pay.

MacDonough also rejected measures that proposed cutting more than $1 billion in costs by slashing the Office of Financial Research funding and getting rid of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Selling off millions of acres of public land
The Senate parliamentarian ruled against a provision championed by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would have sold off millions of acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land in up to 11 states.

Lee, in a post on the social platform X, said he would revamp the plan. The new legislation will still sell off land owned by the Bureau of Land Management — but not land owned by the Forest Service.

He also said he would “SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE” the amount of land in the bill, limiting it only to lands within 5 miles of a population center.

Easing offshore oil and gas project compliance
MacDonough blocked a provision that would deem offshore oil and gas projects as automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act.

She also rejected a measure in the bill that required offshore oil and gas leases to be issued to successful bidders within 90 days after their sale.

She also said Republicans could not include a provision in the bill that requires the Interior secretary to OK the construction of Ambler Road, a more than 200-mile-long access road that would facilitate the development of four large mines and hundreds of smaller mines in northern Alaska.

Forcing the Postal Service to sell electric vehicles
The bill originally contained language that sought to undo Biden administration rules meant to encourage electric vehicle use. The Senate parliamentarian rejected a provision that would force the General Services Administration, which handles the equipment used by government agencies, to sell all the eclectic vehicles used by the U.S. Postal Service.

However, a policy that would rescind funds passed by Democrats to allow the Postal Service to purchase extra electric vehicles and charges is still in the bill.

Repeal EPA rule limiting air pollution emitted by passenger vehicles
The bill targeted several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, including one that restricts air pollution emissions from passenger vehicles. MacDonough said late last week that Republicans could not include that measure in the “big, beautiful bill.”

Allowing project developers to bypass judicial environmental reviews
Republicans also wanted to change the National Environmental Policy Act to allow project developers to fast-track environmental reviews or prevent judicial reviews if they paid a one-time fee, according to Politico. MacDonough ruled against the measure.

Altering the REINS Act
MacDonough also said Republicans could not include a modified version of the REINS Act in the bill. The measure would have increased congressional power over big regulations, according to Axios.

Jun 24, 2025

The Bloody Big Bamboozle


True to form, Republicans in the Senate are diving deep into SmarmSpace©, looking for loopholes - or ways to manufacture some - and trying to come up with the best possible turd polish.

But going so far out of their way to smash-fit some of the ridiculous junk they got from the House into the parliamentary rules, is leading to some interesting examples of self-inflicted wounds.

eg: Ted Cruz (the oiliest of the oily) has rewritten the part about punishing states for regulating AI, but President Yamface has already embarked on a mission to kill funding for states if they dare go against the Tech Lords, so the states might as well do what they want because they don't stand to lose what they weren't going to get anyway. (this fun, isn't it?)

Belle has a good list of items (so far) that are being drowned in the Byrd-Bath.


Apr 20, 2025

Warrior Spirit

Mallory McMorrow brought the fire 2 years ago, and she continues the good fight.

This is the warrior spirit that we have to internalize in order to wield it against the dark forces.