Lame Duck Session ..... what's going to happen?

Assuming a Republican takeover along the lines of 55 seats, what’s going to happen in the final days of this session?

Dems’ll cave on Bush tax cuts, and the rich’ll be encouraged to continue sequestering an ever larger fraction of the nation’s wealth.

Obama might talk veto, but in the end he’ll put on his ‘compromise panties’ and cave as well.

We’ll get to see the culmination of all of the investigations of Obama that have been promised?

Republican leaders have begun gathering evidence for sweeping investigations of Barack Obama’s environmental agenda, from climate science to the BP oil spill, if as expected, they take control of the House of Representatives in the 2 November mid-term elections, the Guardian has learned.

Investigation into Obama’s “affair”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) says the top two priorities of a GOP Congress would be to repeal health care and to investigate programs of the Obama administration.

Congressman Issa is going to create a team to investigate Obama after the November elections is an exciting sign that support for Impeachment is growing.

McConnell says top priority for GOP congress is to make Obama a one-term president

EP: Take your rant somewhere else.

The question was about the lame duck session… not the next session that would be controlled by the Republicans.

It’s going to depend on who wins and who loses.

If Reid loses, he may try to push through some ‘legacy’ legislation. If ihe wins, I suspect that he’ll worry more about consolidating his power prior to the new Republicans coming in.

But really, the behavior of a lame duck Congress is very hard to predict. There’s a lot of jockeying for power for the next session. Committee seats change, caucuses change. Everyone’s looking for an edge.

If the next Senate is close for Republicans, there will be back room deals attempted to get Democrats to flip to the Republicans.

Apologies for my post - Next time I will read for comprehension before posting.
:o

Kegger!

Isn’t the military’s study of DADT repeal due in early December? And doesn’t the Senate still need to pass the larger bill its attached to? Hopefully Ried (since his seat’s secure for six more years) will be a bit more willing to compromise for Snowe and Collins’s (and one or two others, Voinovich maybe?) votes and get that through. That ought to be an easy one.

Reid won? Damn. I was looking forward to the end of his obstruction of the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository.

Really? You’d pay six years of Nutcase Angle for that?

For the end of Yucca obstruction and Angle’s entertainment value? You bet!

Yeah, that’s easy for you to say, eh?

Hoser.

I think that Manchin and Kirk will be seated right away and move things to the right a bit.

Is the budget the only legislation that has to be acted on?

They’ll have to do something about funding the government. And, they’ll cave on the tax cut.

This. The next continuing resolution vote has to occur before December 3. However, if the next CR merely extends into the next Session, the Pubbies could be dumb enough not to extend it again (let alone actually pass the budget). If that were to occur, under the short-sighted premise to “shut down big government,” such action would have catastrophic consequences for the economy.

Doesn’t the CR allow the government to run even though there is no budget? I can’t imagine that the Dems could or would totally punt the budget to the next session.

Then there is the vote to increase the debt limit. Two separate issues right?

FWIW, from the editors of The Nation, here’s “An Agenda for the Lame-Duck Congress.”

I certainly hope so. Especially the Death Tax.

A “death tax” would be a tax you pay just for dying – i.e., a kind of poll tax on every decedent’s estate without regard to value. The estate tax is nothing like that and it is dishonest to apply the name to it.

The Death Tax is a bogey man. It’s a perfectly reasonable tax.

If I give you ten thousand dollars are you taxed on it? Why shouldn’t an inheritance be similarly taxed?

More to the point, why do you want people who have more than 3.5 million to give to their children (the point where the inheritance tax kicks in) to be specifically shielded?