Comments on: Bailout bill and wooden arrows

By: Amit

Amit — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:02:04 +0000

Hmmm….which is worse – a pre-existing provision for wooden arrows in a bill, or a post handout celebration?

By: Amit

Amit — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:06:25 +0000

Lekhni, beggars cannot be choosers.

You are critical of the sops in the bill, yet the hand-out is nothing more than a big pork which you were in favor of. You wanted the hand-out bill to pass quickly so that the sky doesn’t fall down, so why criticize some provisions that were already there? If the bill was passed in a day – the Senators obviously were more busy working out the details of the hand-out than trying to debate the merits of existing provisions in the bill. Everyone, including the Senators, have finite resources available to them in terms of time, no?

Lekhni: Absolutely, everyone has finite time available, and I can see some people would rather prioritize spending that time on wooden arrows instead of the financial crisis

By: Kiran

Kiran — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:35:25 +0000

Kudos on your reading efforts! Anyways, you might not oppose for the bail-out now, but the long-term repercussion’s are just around the corner. Wait and watch. Hoping for the opposite though.
http://wescribble.blogspot.com

Lekhni: Sigh. I know, bailout or no bailout, we are in for a bad time

By: Amit

Amit — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:44:05 +0000

Ah, found it:
“Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate with one notable exception provided for in the Constitution. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.”

Lekhni: Got it.

By: Amit

Amit — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:37:07 +0000

JR is correct. I’ll have to double-check this, but from what I’ve read, a bill needs to be passed in the House first before a (similar) bill on the same issue can be introduced or passed in the Senate – or a rule along those lines. So, to put pressure on the Representatives in the House, the hand-out provisions were tacked on to an existing bill in the Senate and the bill passed, hence the wooden arrows.

Lekhni: Now I understand the technical issue that JR & Calculated Risk were talking about and why they had to attach it to an existing bill!

Of course, this still means the original bill, which probably was a bill on renewable energy, had the wooden arrows added as sweeteners

By: Lestarosa

Lestarosa — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:55:25 +0000

So the wooden arrow lobby is coming full force at a time when the real issue is the american citizen. I expect the bread crust lobby and the leather shoe sole lobby to jump in any minute with their hand out. Please, take your self interest out of the equation. We need conside and definitive repair of the corruption and graft industries so they can get back to making millions. Please, try to think of wall street.

Lekhni: That’s funny

By: Mallika

Mallika — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:40:01 +0000

This must have been the real point of contention. I see no other possible objection to bailing out a bunch of greedy idiots who have created the biggest mess since 1929. Long live free capitalism…

Lekhni: I have no problems with the bailout, as I have said in previous posts..

By: Randy Kangas

Randy Kangas — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:56:25 +0000

Who is the Senator responsible for this arrow (shaft) earmark? He ought to be questioned regarding his patriotism. A list should be made of all Senators responsible for all added “sweeteners”.

Lekhni: This article says the provision was “originally proposed by Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith”.

By: Rajesh Kumar

Rajesh Kumar — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:30:27 +0000

You deserve kudos…and we find you are still awake!

Lekhni: I was sure I had nodded off and was dreaming when I read about the wooden arrows