Stop the funding of the failout!

[SuzukiRider]

Senate Bill 3683 was introduced today by Senator James M Inhofe (R) Oklahoma. Its purpose is to stop any further distribution of funds to Henry Paulson. As of now Paulson has used $350 billion with none of it being used as intended (The reason he stressed urgency of funding it). Right now there are 24 Senators that support this bill, 26 more are needed in order to pass it. If this is important to you make your voice heard. Please call, write, or email your Senator to support this bill. If you have friends and family in others states, contact them to do the same.

[Broken Arrow]

I heard that their plan is now to simply buy controlling shares of the banking companies, rather than just passing out money with little legal stipulations....

It's something to consider.

[GrimJack]

Some mysterious Republican Senator has put a 'secret' hold to stop any votes on the appointment of an inspector general to oversee the bailout funds - maybe we should at least get an IG to look over Paulson's shoulder.

[cptacek]

Some mysterious Republican Senator has put a 'secret' hold to stop any votes on the appointment of an inspector general to oversee the bailout funds - maybe we should at least get an IG to look over Paulson's shoulder.

The republicans aren't in control of congress. If the democrats wanted an IG, they could get one.

[GrimJack]

The republicans aren't in control of congress. If the democrats wanted an IG, they could get one.

Understood! We (the US) have established a system of checks and balances designed to ameliorate the 'tyranny of the majority'; one of the checks is that any US Senator can 'black-ball' any senate legislation in secret. There is no way to bypass this blockage and, theoretically, no way to find out who blocked it. Recently, legislation was passed forcing the naming of the senator but only after 6 'in-session' days. Senate rules forbid any senator from naming the senator who is blocking the legislation (I am unclear on what the punishment for 'leaking' is). What various blogger groups are doing now is contacting each of their Senators and asking "are you blocking?" They do not have to answer; but they would be downright stupid to lie so the list of possible blockers is narrowing. So far no one wants to be associated with stopping the oversight so they are answering "Not Me". Well, actually everyone thinks it is Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) who has gone on the record saying that he is against the bailout (and would rather see the country burn in hell than {oops sorry, this is an editorial insert - I'll stop now}).

We will get an IG but (hopefully) it will be over the corpse of Sen. Bunning (hey CARNIVORE please do not take this as a threat, it is a metaphor).

[cptacek]

What?!? Are you serious? If that is true, how does anything get passed?

[GrimJack]

What?!? Are you serious? If that is true, how does anything get passed?

Yeah! It forces a lot of bargaining and behind the scene deals. It can't be overused or the rule would be changed. Here is a link to a left-leaning site with a little more info about the current blockage

[cptacek]

Yeah! It forces a lot of bargaining and behind the scene deals. It can't be overused or the rule would be changed. Here is a link to a left-leaning site with a little more info about the current blockage

Unless you can point to some legislation where a Democrat has used this same tactic to successfully stop bill in a Republican-led Senate, I'm calling bull****.

[GrimJack]

Unless you can point to some legislation where a Democrat has used this same tactic to successfully stop bill in a Republican-led Senate, I'm calling bull****.

I do not understand?? What are you calling BullPucky on? Are you suggesting that unless the Democrats do it, it is not true? Or are you saying that you do not buy the concept at all? Or are you implying that I am accusing the Republicans of, of, uh, sorry - I guess, I do not know what sort of response you want.

[cptacek]

I do not understand?? What are you calling BullPucky on? Are you suggesting that unless the Democrats do it, it is not true? Or are you saying that you do not buy the concept at all? Or are you implying that I am accusing the Republicans of, of, uh, sorry - I guess, I do not know what sort of response you want.

I am not trying to start a flame war here, please understand that. I just have never heard of this, and find it just incredible that one senator can hold the entire Senate hostage like that. If one senator actually can do that, then how has so much bad legislation gotten passed? If this actually is true, you can bet that in addition to the throat lozenges and the book War and Peace I am going to send to my senators (good for filibustering, which I know can happen), I'm going to throw some black marbles in for good measure.

I looked around the internet for examples of this when you first posted, and every one I saw was someone on the Democrat side blaming the Republicans for holding up legislation. I guess what I meant by "give me an example of a Democrat doing this" was because if something like this can actually happen, then both sides are doing it, and such an example can be found.

If the only examples are Democrats blaming Republicans for doing it, I don't believe it is true. Republicans were in control of congress from 1994 to 2006. There has to be an example in that 12 year period you can point to. If you can't, I simply don't believe you.

Democrats are going to be in charge of the House, Senate and White House, yet I think they are still trying to find a way to blame the Republicans for when things go wrong. This "super secret black ball option" just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[GrimJack]

I never even considered flames or whatever, I truly wanted to know what you were looking for. Anyway, I looked around a little and can't seem to find any reference to democrats but did find more Republicans. Too be honest, I do not understand it too much myself. "A secret hold is a parliamentary procedure within the Standing Rules of the Senate within the United States Senate that allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. Current Senate rules allow the hold to be only temporarily anonymous." It used to be permanently anonymous but was changed recently to be '6 session days'. I dug through the official rules but could not find it so here is the widipedia entry.