Is it possible that the Democrats who voted for it are figuring that it won’t end up going anywhere? If so, is it possible that they’re figuring correctly?
Well, yes. The bill will almost surely be different out of conference, and then there will be a final vote. If not transformed into a bill mostly aiding Ukraine, Biden will veto.
If all twelve House Democrats, who voted yes, had voted no, it still would have passed.
If they vote for it, they’re voting for the IRS budget getting cut and the rich keeping more money. If they vote against it, they’re voting against helping Israel. It’s a real “no-upside” attack, which is why MAGA Mike chose to use it. Can’t blame them for wanting to keep their seats and maintain the Democratic numbers.
I’d like to see Dems playhardball with these maga idiots. Let them know that if bullshit is presented, it won’t be supported.
I would love it if, some day, a large majority of voters would stop falling for such obvious gamesmanship, but alas, that day is probably not today.
Yeah, it’s partly because people won’t hear the message as to why they voted that way. It doesn’t always get through to people who aren’t paying attention (through no fault of their own in many cases).
I don’t support this particular bill, either, but to be clear: it was going to pass without Dem votes anyway, so it’s not like these folks pushed it over the line.
Performative BS, unlike anything the GOoPers do.
Dan
How much of a IRS budget cut were they proposing?
That’s how it should have gone.
If the Republicans wanted a bill that would only fund Israel, then they should have written one that only did that.
For any Democrat to have supported what Republicans did write is everything I hate about politics.
14 bil, the same as Israel was getting, so “It wouldn’t cost anything” and the wealthy could cheat on their income taxes more easily.
Every dollar spent on the iRS is returned something like 5 times, iirc.
Indeed.
And Mike Johnson made fun of the CBO for saying that cutting the IRS budget would increase the deficit.
What’s the syndrome or term for people promoted beyond their level of competence?
I’m not sure there is one. Perhaps we should coin one.
I suggest the Johnson Principle. It’s got a ring to it.
The Peter Principle, but Johnson Principle does indeed have a ring to it.
I suggest we change Peter to Johnson.
Peter and Johnson are synonyms, no?
Peter Principle postulates that people get promoted to their level of incompetence.
Johnson Principle rises above and beyond.
Good point, well taken.