Funding the War: There Ought to Be a Rule Against This Kind of Rule

[unhappycamper]

Funding the War: There Ought to Be a Rule Against This Kind of Rule
Rep. Alan Grayson
U.S. Congressman from Florida's 8th District
Posted: July 8, 2010 05:13 PM

Last week, for three hours, the House debated whether to appropriate $33 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were passionate arguments on both sides, with thunderous words from those who seek withdrawal from Afghanistan, and forceful warnings from the other side against undercutting the Commander-in-Chief.

Because the vote to fund the war actually had taken place three hours earlier.

Because the vote to fund the war actually had taken place three hours earlier.

It had been snuck into a very common -- and rarely substantive -- procedural vote known as a 'Rule'. A 'Rule' is a simple set of instructions on what bills and amendments the full House will vote on. It almost always passes on a routine, party-line vote.

This time, though, there was something different about the Rule. It contained arcane and baroque terms essentially saying -- without saying -- that upon passage of the Rule, the House agreed with the Senate to fund $33 billion more for the war.



unhappycamper comment: Thanks Nancy!

[Sherman A1]

1. Gotta keep the MIC

coffers full of cash! :banghead: