__________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________________

^^Alaska^^

[ ]
^^ANWAR^^

.
^^Oil Wells and Facilities^^

IT'S AN ENVIROMENTAL CATASTROPHE!!!!!1!11!!1!!!!!!onehundredeleven!!!11!!111!!

No filibuster permitted?

I feel so.....rejected.

Guess I should go home now and weep.....

BTW, nice new Dusty, ace.

You know, if they had let us do this two years ago, we wouldn't have had to kill all those Iraqi children to get to their oil.

Nice goin', tree-hugging weenies.

I want to thank Ace's bete noir, Ted Stevens, for the 15 tireless years of his advocating to open ANWR. About 3/4 of all Alaskans, including the Democrats here, wanted to see this happen, and now we're almost there. It's unbelievable.

I have more on ANWR on my blog:

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/03/alaska_open_for.html

I have an interesting take on it over here

Is it just me or is there an increasing amount of blog pimping going on around here? Isn't there something in the BCOC* that forbids this practice?

*Blog Code of Conduct

Speaking of drilling, that new dusty is sporting quite the rig!

She looks a little too wholesome to be hawking Dusty.
But maybe you guys are into that.

LauraW...

Wholesome Dusty. Slutty Dusty. Have it your way Dusty. It's all good.

By the way, you won the caption contest.

Well, it's about time! I remember that last time, the great U.S. Senator Bob Smith (Conservative-NH) actually voted against this measure. I think that I was surprised by this... Here in Illinois, I'm not sure how [our now-former] U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (?-IL) voted on this... He is also known as someone who has taken a particular view on environmental issues.

Interesting column:
9 out of 10 caribou back ANWR drilling

If I'm not mistaken, (and I never am) the BCOC requires the pimping of one's blog in the comments sections of other blogs.

I don't have anything to add to the ANWR discussion, but if blog-pimping is what the BCOC requires, then here's my link.

By the way, why can't Frist make Bush's judicial nominations part of the budget process, making them immune from filibuster?

I believe that bills that have to do with revenue are exempt from filibuster. As the ANWR drilling almost certainly includes paying a royalty to the US, it would deliver revenue.

That's my belief. How sure am I? Sure of the first part, not sure of the second.

Ace, you are close but a little off.

The Congressional Budget Act created a process referred to as budget reconciliation, while also mandating that Budget Resolutions themselves could not be filibustered (the act set limits on debate time).

In reconcilation, you can throw revenue and spending measures in, subject to a variety of "points of orders" that can be raised if those provisions violate certain rules. Items placed in "reconcilation" (which basically means any item that affects the budget baseline within a 10 year window) also escape filibusters as they only need 51 votes to pass under the CBA.

Unfortunately for the judicial nominees, their nominations wouldn't be germane to the Budget resolution and would likely be ruled out of order. Further, since the main purpose of a budget resolution is to set the Committee Allocations (the amount of money each Appropriations Committee has to spend down each fiscal year) I don't believe that the Budget Committee would even have Jurisdiction to attempt to place nominees in the budget resolution..

Reconciliation is a little lax: You can slip spending measures and tax cuts/increases into them because they affect the committee allocations. That's the hook used to protect ANWR, as ANWR's revenue is being factored into the figure used to set the overall number for committee allocations .

It's also how Bush's tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. In fact, that's why Bush's tax plans all have expiration dates. If you pass something under reconcilation you have to put an "expiration" date on it, as the items must fall solely with the reconcilation wiindow (usually 10 years..although sometimes 5 or 7).

Since say "Bill Pryor's nomination" doesnt have an explicit effect on the baseline within a 10 year window (the Approps committee gets an allocation that will have money to cover his pay whether or not he is confirmed, if he is they spend it..if he isnt they spend it on something else or return it) it can't go into reconciliation. And since the budget resolution doesn't dictate how money is to be spent (that function is left to approps committees) it can't be hooked into the regular resolution either.

So to sum up: Unless you are a taxing or spending measure (either increasing or decreasing) which affects the 10 year budget window (thereby eligible for reconciliation) or you change the committee allocations (in the body of the Budget Resolution itself), the Budget process probably cant gain you the filibuster protections, or even consider you.

Have I put you to sleep yet?

You can also check some information dedicated to online phentermine online pharmacy ... Thanks!!!