The GOP agenda per Speaker Johnson
-
While clean bills would be preferrable, I don't see the tactic going away. The add-ons I really despise are the multitudinous earmarks, which have no bearing on a bill, except for pet pork.
-
While clean bills would be preferrable, I don't see the tactic going away. The add-ons I really despise are the multitudinous earmarks, which have no bearing on a bill, except for pet pork.
@Jolly said in The GOP agenda per Speaker Johnson:
While clean bills would be preferrable, I don't see the tactic going away. The add-ons I really despise are the multitudinous earmarks, which have no bearing on a bill, except for pet pork.
The question becomes where does one draw the line at "pork?"
Stop it all, and your appellation of "tactic" is spot-on.
-
-
I disagree. I don't like the idea of tying any kind of appropriation to any other appropriation.
Make it a clean funding bill without the weight of having to vote against something you like because of an add-on.
One item per bill.
Wanna fund Israel's defense? Have at it.
Wanna fund border? Have at it.
Wanna fund IRS? Have at it.Can't fund all three? Well, decide which gets cut and by how much.
Want a Mercedes S-Class? Buy it.
Want a penthouse in NYC? Buy it.
Want food on the table? Buy it.Can't afford all three, adjust accordingly.
@George-K said in The GOP agenda per Speaker Johnson:
I disagree. I don't like the idea of tying any kind of appropriation to any other appropriation.
Make it a clean funding bill without the weight of having to vote against something you like because of an add-on.
One item per bill.
Wanna fund Israel's defense? Have at it.
Wanna fund border? Have at it.
Wanna fund IRS? Have at it.Can't fund all three? Well, decide which gets cut and by how much.
Want a Mercedes S-Class? Buy it.
Want a penthouse in NYC? Buy it.
Want food on the table? Buy it.Can't afford all three, adjust accordingly.
I agree except for deficit spending. When you are already this far in deficit, any additional spending should be tied directly to a spending cut or a tax increase.
I am more than fine with the money for Israel being cut from something else. I don’t like seeing the Ukrainian and border spending tied together, though.
-
I'd love to see the GOP actually stand for traditional GOP values. This may be a return to sanity.
Funny what can happen if one actually leads.
@Mik said in The GOP agenda per Speaker Johnson:
I'd love to see the GOP actually stand for traditional GOP values. This may be a return to sanity.
Funny what can happen if one actually leads.
Now, what you are going to see, that you may not like, is that Johnson is an evangelical. Very pro-life. Very much against the current gender insanity. Very much in favor of traditional marriage and children's issues. He hails from North Louisiana, part of the buckle of the Bible Belt. His wife is a frequent church speaker at services or events. So, you're going to see that mind-set, coupled with his natural proclivity to consensus build behind closed doors.
-
More just a curious question. Now that he is speaker, are the constituents just his district? All Republics? The whole nation? He definitely has a much larger influence than the normal congressman.
-
This is encouraging.
“Ukraine will come in short order and it will come next,” Johnson said. “We want to pair border security with Ukraine because I think we can get bipartisan agreement on both of those matters.”
-
This is encouraging.
“Ukraine will come in short order and it will come next,” Johnson said. “We want to pair border security with Ukraine because I think we can get bipartisan agreement on both of those matters.”
@jon-nyc quoting a news article in The GOP agenda per Speaker Johnson:
“Ukraine will come in short order and it will come next,” Johnson said. “We want to pair border security with Ukraine because I think we can get bipartisan agreement on both of those matters.”
Like what?
If you want to fund
IsraelUkraine, cut an equivalent amount fromthe IRSborder security?
