13 Responses to “HOUSE DFL JAMS THROUGH DEBT BILL”

1. Hector Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 7:43 AM

   Rep. Seifert says there was no opportunity to represent his constituents. Wasn’t there a vote on the issue?

2. Ed Kohler Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 8:03 AM

   Rep. Seifert can give as many campaign speeches as he’d like on his own time. It’s the fiscally conservative thing to do.

3. Hector Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 10:16 AM

   I had a chat the other day with a Republican representative who I like and even respect. It was about a vote taken a while back in which, it seemed to me, Republicans voted for a result that led to policies in conflict with their general positions. Maybe I should add here, that this wasn’t a matter in which I had much personal interest. I asked the rep about that, and was told that the vote had to do with the legislative context in which it occurred. I didn’t understand that then, and I don’t now. Legislative context is a fleeting thing. What matters is what the legislature does, what goes into the Laws of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Statutes. I would say much the same thing about floor squabbles like that in the video. What should matter, for better or worse, is what the legislature does, not the endless amount of hot air it expels in doing it.

4. Chris Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 10:39 AM

   Hector,

   I agree with point (1), a vote on an issue is representing your constituents – whether it’s a yes vote or a no vote.

   I don’t agree with point (2). Procedure does matter. It especially matters when the product that comes out of the bad procedure is flawed. There should be full disclosure and ample debate on issues at the legislature. The only reason the legislature is in session during the even year is to consider a bonding bill. Once a bonding bill is done, the legislature can adjourn sine die. There is no reason the legislature couldn’t have debated that bill all night long. Certainly, a reasonable amount of time for debate should have been given to both sides. Instead of allowing ample debate, the DFL rammed the bill down everyone’s throats — just as they did last session with the tax bill.

   If you want to see all hell break loose, just wait to see if the Democrats in Congress try passing health care through reconciliation.

5. Hiram Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 12:36 PM

   In the video above, Rep. Seifert doesn’t complain about a violation procedure. What he does seem to be complaining is that procedural means were used to shut down debate. While it might be nice if there were opportunities for full disclosure and ample debate, based on the video above at least, the procedures of the house do not require them.

   I think ample debate is nice, but it should never be used to prevent either the senate or the house from conducting it’s business. The reason that’s allowed to happen on the national level, specifically in the senate, have no bearing at all on what happens in our state legislature or any other state legislature in the country.

6. danbrome Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 12:41 PM

   Chris..

   How did you feel when Republicans used reconciliation to pass these major Bush agenda items? Were you outraged then too?

   – The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
   – The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
   – Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
   – The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

   I have no position (yet) on whether the Democrats should consider reconciliation for their agenda items. I’m just wondering if you think that “all hell” should break loose only when Democrats copy the Republicans.

7. Average_Joe Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 1:06 PM

   Does anyone know if an unedited version exists for this same time frame? Not that I don’t trust the editors, I’d like to see what happened in between.

8. Hector Says:
   February 17th, 2010 at 6:25 AM

   I see that Augsburg College are featuring the billboard on their lit. Again, I just don’t see it. I don’t think the billboard is pro-Bush, or maybe more importantly, pro-Republican.

9. danbrome Says:
   February 17th, 2010 at 4:21 PM

   Chris?

10. Hector Says:
    February 18th, 2010 at 8:31 AM

    Part of the problem here, and something that everyone is going to have to consider going forward, is that so far, it isn’t clear that Rep. Zellers speaks for, and has the authority to make commitments on behalf of his caucus. When Rep. Siefert takes the microphone, and complains about the enforcement of agreements those leadership entered into, he undermines his leaders. There is no point for Democratic leaders to deal with Republican leaders, in a spirit of comity and good will, if they just get stabbed in the back by back benchers for their trouble.

11. Hector Says:
    February 18th, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    And among other things, it’s time for Rep. Seifert to decide whether he wants to be governor or leader of Republicans in the House. I am sure Rep. Zellers is waiting for Rep. Seifert’s decision on that also.

12. Focused on 2010 Says:
    February 18th, 2010 at 7:58 PM

    You seem to have all kinds of excuses for Democrats not working with Republicans. Blame it on the Republican’s like everything else.

    Do Democrats EVER take responsibility?

    Guess not…

13. Hector Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 5:59 AM

    Democrats did work with Republicans. The time limits for the debate had been agreed to by the leaders before it started. By demanding that the debate be extended beyond those limits, Rep. Seifert was violating the agreement Rep. Zellers had made with the Democratic leadership. Doing a little showboating on the House floor at Rep. Zellers expense, I guess.

    There is no question that the Democratic leadership of the House took on the responsibility of enforcing the agreement made. You can tell that in the video above where it’s the speaker making the rulings visibly and on camera, and Rep. Zellers is nowhere to be seen.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.