Senate breaks without vote on $1.1 trillion spending bill

[ucrdem]

Source: CBS

11:07 p.m. EST December 12, 2014

WASHINGTON (CBS) -- It will be Monday at the earliest before the Senate votes on a $1.1 trillion government funding bill passed by the House on Thursday night.

The Senate was expected to hold a voice vote Friday night to pass a short-term bill, approved by the House earlier in the day, which funds the government through Wednesday night, December 17.

Senators will return to work Monday with a cloture vote expected on the larger spending package, which would end debate and move the legislation to a vote by the full Senate, perhaps Monday night.

Democrats object to several items in the bill, although the one raising the biggest outcry is a banking provision that rolls back a Dodd-Frank rule requiring the separation of most derivatives trading from traditional banking.

Read more: http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/12/senate-breaks-without-vote-on-11-trillion-spending-bill/20341977/

---

Reid's comment:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who will soon be giving up that title, said he wouldn't have added the provision, but added, "I didn't write this bill. The Senate Democrats didn't write this bill alone. It's a compromise. That is what legislation is all about."

[still_one]

1. Could it be that they are not voting because it doesn't have enough votes?

[Art_from_Ark]

2. It's not compromise, Senator Reid.

It's capitulation.

[840high]

4. ...^ that

[cstanleytech]

6. No, it is a compromise as some democrats did agree to it but it does blow chunks.

That aside I think its a minor change to be honest in that what we really need is even stricter rules on the banks and far more oversight not to mention maybe some breaking up of the top 5 big banks into smaller banks with less overall risk if one were to fail then.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. I disagree

Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Every time, it seems as though the Democrats, who are supposed to be looking after our interests, have instead caved to the demands of the #$%& Republicans, once again.

[cstanleytech]

8. I respect your view on that.

But the thing is with the way our government is setup sometimes we have to give on an issue otherwise nothing will get done which is what some of the tea party nutjobs want to happen if you think about it and their goal of less or no government is a good thing mentality.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. We've been giving, and giving, and giving, and giving

and yet, we have diddly squat to show for our efforts.

[ucrdem]

9. Yes, but there's more going on than meets the eye.

On that Dodd-Frank rollback, it turns out there's an even stronger regulation prohibiting banks from investing in derivatives than the one being rolled back, which simply required them to "push out" such investments to non-FDIC affiliates. It's called the Volcker Rule and it went into effect in April. So you have to wonder whether part of the delay isn't showboating for the benefit of someone's 2016 ambitions.

[Art_from_Ark]

12. There may be more than meets the eye, but

the end result is that we get screwed, "blewed", and tattooed once again.

I live in a country that still has decent social welfare programs, and I am looking at the US as a country that I love, and which is the land of my birth, and the land where half my family lives. But from my vantage point, the US long ago lost its direction, and this latest vote is just another nail in its proverbial coffin.

[ucrdem]

14. I don't think we got screwed.

I guess the immigration EO is debatable but no one can deny that it will have a greater and more immediate impact on many more lives -- 4 million lives -- than a redundant bank regulation that will have no effect whatsoever. Yeah the banks want to eliminate every regulation, but this particular provision wasn't a deal-breaker, at least IMHO.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. The Republicans don't give a tinker's cuss about immigration

In fact, they probably support illegal immigration, because it keeps wages down.
And yes, it does keep wages down, as I have experienced that first-hand.

This bill that is up before Congress is nothing less than a sell-out of the working people of the US.

[newfie11]

24. I soooo agree with you

This bill sucks!! I hope to hell the it doesn't pass.

when the repugs take over congress let them pass this garbage. It's time to stop being a doormat!

[turbinetree]

30. I also Disagree

This so called bill has a provision in there that if you work for 30 years and have a pension, they the corporation, can give you only 30-50% of the earned benefit.
Just like when the airline I was working for, filed for bankruptcy, placed the pensions in the PBGC and now the tax payers are holding the bill obligation instead of the corporation, the retirees get 50% of what was suppose to be held in trust that the corporations-----
1. did not fund fully
2. Robbed from it to make there prospectus look like it was funded in the 10k filing, on the balance sheet

This bill is a god damn joke;


Warren and others have it RIGHT, and if any one says they will vote for this is absolutely outrageous.
Watch Warrens speech from last night on the floor 12/12/2014 she nailed it

[ucrdem]

3. Yes, that and I imagine senators will want to give constituents a couple of days

to weigh in, now that it's become a hot potato. What worries me is the possibility that it won't get passed at all, meaning shutdown, or that it gets hastily renegotiated, in which case we're probably going to lose something more important than a banking regulation.

[still_one]

10. I suspect that is Obama's concern, but in this case, dismantling Dodd/Frank portions is wrong. I

doubt Obama would agree to it if it involved cutting back the ACA as part of the budget deal.

In fact the citi corp derivitive bail out should NOT be part of the budget deal

[ucrdem]

11. You'd think, but appearances in this case are deceiving.

Here's a GD thread from last night explaining why the push-out rule isn't all that important:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025948311

[still_one]

16. I don't know I have to look at this more carefully. That Franken, Sanders, Warren, and others have

said not only will they vote no on the bill, the impression I get from them, especially Warren, is that this is bad addition to the bill.

I look further into it, but my first impulse is that if it isn't all that important, then why do it?

[ucrdem]

18. Banks want to offer one-stop shopping

and this roll-back would allow their clients to purchase derivatives and similar directly from the banks, who would be permitted to trade them, but not to actually invest in them. The Volcker rule prohibits direct investment, the push-out rule prohibits in-house trading. This per CNBC:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102263144#.

So yeah it's a concession. I just don't think it's worth a shutdown and/or renegotiation of the spending bill next year.

[still_one]

19. OK that clarifies it for me, however, I personally do not believe banks have any business

With option trading, or other similar instruments

Problem is allowing insured banks to offer extremely risky investments to customers may put the banks assets at risk depending on what kind of oversight is available, and based on recent experience from chase and citi i do have real concerns

[former9thward]

29. No, they have the votes.

But under Senate rules a senator can tie up a vote for two or three days. Cruz tied up the vote on Friday. There will be a cloture vote on Monday or Tuesday and that will get past the 60 votes. They will then take a vote on the bill.

[ucrdem]

5. Let the 48-hour stop-gap bills commence:

One day after House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi publicly chastised him for supporting the bill, the president said there were provisions “I really do not like.” At the same time, he said there were other portions that “fund health insurance, early childhood education, the fight against climate change and expand manufacturing hubs to grow jobs.”

He offered his assessment as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid also announced support for the legislation, further underscoring the split inside the party. The Democrats will lose control of the Senate in January because of heavy losses in midterm elections last month and will go deeper into a House minority than at any time since 1928.

With lawmakers eager to wrap up work for the year, the measure was on track for final passage by early next week. To give the Senate time to complete action, Obama signed a 48-hour law to keep the government funded through Saturday and prevent a shutdown that both parties have pledged to avoid. A second stop-gap bill was also in the wings, to make sure the government had funding through Wednesday.

Nor was there much if any controversy over the spending levels in the spending measure, which provides funding to keep nearly the entire government operating through the Sept. 30 end of the current budget year.
..............
Read more: Cherokee Tribune - Obama urges spending bill ratification as rift within Democratic Party widens
http://cherokeetribune.com/bookmark/26235475-Obama-urges-spending-bill-ratification-as-rift-within-Democratic-Party-widens

This could be the start of a very long year . . .

[SamKnause]

17. President Obama

is following the instructions of his BFF, Jamie Dimon.

[Sherman A1]

20. Good News

if nothing else this gives the public more time to contact their Senators.

[ucrdem]

21. . . . and bad news: Cruz is kicking up a fuss over immigration.

I was afraid that would be the result of this ruckus, and sure enough, this well-publicized Dem squabble gave Shutdown Tex the opening he needed:

First Dems, Now Senate GOP Object to Spending Bill
WASHINGTON — Dec 13, 2014, 3:42 AM ET
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press

First it was objections by House Democrats that stood in the way of passage of a $1.1 trillion catchall spending bill. Now it's the Senate Republicans' turn, specifically Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah.

The two lawmakers demanded a vote Friday night on a proposal to cut funds from the bill that could be used to implement President Barack Obama's new immigration policy, ending any chance the measure could clear the Senate and be sent to the White House with a minimum of fuss.

Officials in both parties said the bill remains on track for clearance by early next week. Even so, the move led Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to abandon plans to adjourn the Senate for the weekend, and raised the possibility of a test vote on the spending bill shortly after midnight on Saturday.

Senate Republican leaders have pledged to challenge Obama's immigration policy early in the new year, after the GOP takes control of the Senate. But Cruz suggested they shouldn't be entirely trusted to keep their pledge.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-debates-11t-bill-vote-slips-week-27575032

p.s. I think in this instance, the more public scrutiny this bill gets, meaning the more horseshit WaPo, HuffPo and CNN can dish out, the worse it will go for Dems, mainly because this is our last hurrah before the new Congress comes in and it's nearly Christmas to boot. In other words, it might not get done.

[pampango]

23. Shout it out loudly, Ted. There may still be a few Hispanics who have not heard from the GOP

on immigration reform.

Ted, you undoubtedly think this kind of posturing is the way to fire up the republican base - and you are right - but you will rue this in about 23 months.

[snot]

22. Making us liable for losses on credit derivatives/gambles with grandma's savings

. . . yeah.

The banksters' bets are now bigger than they were in 2008. Bush/Obama's response to that crash sucked trillions out of the world (esp. the US's) economy, to give bonuses to the banksters.

We simply cannot survive that again.

No budget deal is worth it.

[newfie11]

25. Agreed!!!!!!!! Nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Dammit! Put an end to 'voice votes'.

That's more of the anti-democratic crap that goes on in DC.

EVERY Congressperson should have to be on record on every single vote. If you think it takes too long to collect votes, just assign them all buttons to push, rather than reading a roll call and waiting for an answer. Let them push the button, and have their vote recorded and let them verify it.

But no more of these 'voice votes' that let unpopular crap pass without showing the public who wanted it passed!

[davidthegnome]

27. And so...

Americans are expected to drink another gallon of liquid manure and grin about it - all in the name of "compromise".

I'm so sick of these idiots. Our Democrats should be up in arms about what's happening, they should be shouting from the rooftops, hell, they should be putting on their "comfortable walking shoes" and protesting themselves.

To this day - my biggest problem with politicians of all sorts... cowardice.

"We can't win, so we won't fight. God bless America. I'm sure glad our founding fathers felt the same way. Can Congress have another raise now? Sure we can, let's all vote yes!"

[Fred Sanders]

28. OUR turn to shutdown the government without admitting to shutting it down... and then finding out there

is no real consequence for shutting the government down, not really, because the folks will have forgotten who to blame by next Sweeps Season?

"Gruber was right, remember that." I have that as a bumper sticker.

I am for it then. Shut it down.

What they gonna do, what they always do, blame Obama? So what?