Reality of Passing HR 2046

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They thought we were easy targets, but now are finding out that, while we're not exactly the nation's most powerful lobby, the combination of D'Amato, PPA, us writing, some money, and Frank bill (which now has 11 cosponsors!) makes us something less than easy pickings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have any idea how many co-sponsors the average HR bill gets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really depends on how much effort people place on getting cosponsors and how much pressure people in their district are making.

[HoldemCPA]

I say that they should appropriate the tax revenue associated with HR 2046 to the "war on terror" and homeland security. Then, by voting against it you are un-american. Thats how they got the UIEGA through.

Just a thought.

[curtains]

If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe fire has to be fought with fire, no matter how distasteful. After all everything in politics is distasteful these days.

[Eaglebauer]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those people whose livelihoods are at stake can't afford the luxury of such principles, IMO.

[HoldemCPA]

Yeah. Morals are great, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I didn't criticize it much the first time, since it's totally standard Washington practice/the bill would've passed by a wide margin if it had been brought to the Senate on its own (that individual Senators can block this is another story.)

I'm certainly not about to criticize it this time.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I didn't criticize it much the first time, since it's totally standard Washington practice/the bill would've passed by a wide margin if it had been brought to the Senate on its own (that individual Senators can block this is another story.)

I'm certainly not about to criticize it this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has Frank made any statements about attaching this legislation to anything else?... or is this just speculation?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Has Frank made any statements about attaching this legislation to anything else?... or is this just speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]


I haven't seen such a statement from him, but I'm sure he knows that it's the ONLY chance that bill has. Even if the concept had general bi-partisan support which at this point it certainly doesn't, Kyl would and will put an immediate hold on it as soon as it got sent to the senate. So either Frank is able to get it passed via the same process as the IUGEA passed, or it never gets to the president's desk.

[Skallagrim]

My guess is that Frank has enough clout himself (especially with a democratic majority, and with the banks, and the PPA, etc..) to get this passed on its own in the house.

But the senate is indeed a different story (one senator can block a lot of things). So is the Bush veto threat.

I agree with adanthar that the only realistic way this becomes law is for Sen. Reid to get behind it and attach it to something else in the same way Frist did.

That avoids the ability of a single or small group of senators to block things, and puts Bush in a difficult spot indeed (if attached to a bill they like).

And the beautiful irony of that scenario actually appeals to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Skallagrim