Senate's plan: let's bribe a few congressmen with billions more dollars

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This wouldn't be a revenue bill, I don't think. It calls for a tax cut in the Senate. Spending is not revenue.

I'm not sure what Venkman means by "revenue bill" but appropriations bills do and must start in the House. I don't know how this can be called anything but appropriations, so I am likewise interested to hear how they've gotten around that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Get Tex to the burn unit...STAT! He's going to need extra gauze.

It's all ball bearings, guys.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's all ball bearings, guys.

"perhaps you could use a refresher course...."

All right! Tex shows some life and busts out a Fletch reference....and a good one, at that. Nice job.

Welcome to Earth, Tex. Remove your data chip and feel free to participate more often! I have a feeling you have some decent material.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure what Venkman means by "revenue bill" but appropriations bills do and must start in the House. I don't know how this can be called anything but appropriations, so I am likewise interested to hear how they've gotten around that.

The Constitution refers to revenue bill, so it depends on what the meaning of revenue bill is. I would think that $700b spending would fall under the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Seems like the house is being strong armed to me, and I'm not sure this is all on the up and up, constitutionally.

Of course, we've been getting around, or just ignoring, that pesky document for years now, so whether it's kosher or not is probably irrelevant at this point.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

The Constitution refers to revenue bill, so it depends on what the meaning of revenue bill is. I would think that $700b spending would fall under the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Seems like the house is being strong armed to me, and I'm not sure this is all on the up and up, constitutionally.

Of course, we've been getting around, or just ignoring, that pesky document for years now, so whether it's kosher or not is probably irrelevant at this point.

Hmm, interesting. Looks like I need a refresher myself.

A quick look on Wikipedia offers this explanation for how it might work:

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house. The Constitution also states that the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills," so in practice the Senate and House traditionally proceed separately, with each body drafting and considering their own bills separately. The Senate generally will amend its version of a particular appropriations bill to the House-passed version in order to send the bill to a conference committee prior to the bill becoming law. This is why the majority of appropriations bills that are enacted contain the H.R. modifier used to identify House introduced legislation.

So perhaps the Senate is permitted to draft revenue-related legislation and then just "attach" it to whatever equivalent bill is coming out of the House, for conference.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Tex

So perhaps the Senate is permitted to draft revenue-related legislation and then just "attach" it to whatever equivalent bill is coming out of the House, for conference.

I think this is right. A spending or taxation "bill" can originate in the Senate, in a non-binding form, almost like a resolution, but it doesn't mean a damn thing until the House takes up & passes that bill or something closely related, after which it goes to conference, etc.

A spending or taxation bill that originates & stays in the Senate is not binding, at all.