Democrats' House Agenda (1 Viewer)

[Hilts]

They've got a lot to do. 

Democrats Say Their First Bill Will Focus On Strengthening Democracy At Home 

The bill would establish automatic voter registration and reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act, crippled by a Supreme Court decision in 2013. It would take away redistricting power from state legislatures and give it to independent commissions.

Other provisions would overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which declared political spending is First Amendment free speech; they would mandate more disclosure of outside money and establish a public financing match for small contributions.

Sanders to Re-Introduce $15 Minimum Wage Bill in First Week of New Congress - He's not a Democrat, but he's a prominent voice within the party so I'm still counting it.

House Democrats' Agenda: Ethics, Infrastructure and Medical Legislation

 Democratic leaders say they would use their first month in the House majority to advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act.

Finally, here come the fireworks. They're reportedly loading a "subpoena cannon" with 85+ Trump targets. This one is probably going to garner the most coverage.

I think the Democrats are in a tough spot - they need to investigate Trump. Trump and the Republicans are going to hammer them no matter how much or little they investigate. Republicans aren't going to work with Democrats and Trump is going to blame them for anything gone wrong. If there isn't a consistent message, some of the scandals and things they're fighting for might get lost in the mix.

 

[jonessed]

Might as well throw in the Free Ponies Act of 2019.

 

[Hilts]

Might as well throw in the Free Ponies Act of 2019.

What do you believe they should be doing, and which of their planned acts are you taking issue with?

 

[jonessed]

What do you believe they should be doing, and which of their planned acts are you taking issue with?

I think an infrastructure bill could make it into law.  That’s a good place to start.

 

[Hilts]

I think an infrastructure bill could make it into law.  That’s a good place to start.

Bridging The Partisan Divide: Can Infrastructure Unite Democrats And Republicans?

I agree this is one of the only areas they might be able to work together. If nothing else, I do love infrastructure weeks. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

They are starting with renewable energy and by protesting at Pelosi's office.  Love it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Weed please.  Please may we legalize the weed?

 

[joffer]

Infrastructure and Renewable Energy.  They can go hand in hand.

 

[D Baseball]

Weed please.  Please may we legalize the weed?

Isn't it already, for the most part? It's not like people are in prison for smoking pot. I guess to tax it would be good.  Will the FDA be in charge of regulating it? Or the ATF? 

 

[pollardsvision]

Isn't it already, for the most part? It's not like people are in prison for smoking pot. I guess to tax it would be good.  Will the FDA be in charge of regulating it? Or the ATF? 

There is a marijuana bust every 48 seconds in this country. And marijuana arrests make up 40% of overall drug arrests. 

 

[D Baseball]

There is a marijuana bust every 48 seconds in this country. And marijuana arrests make up 40% of overall drug arrests. 

And get charged with a violation most times. Like I said ,

theres no one in prison for smoking or possessing small quantities of pot. It's been effectively decriminalized. But they should go ahead and go all the way and legalize it. 

 

[D_House]

Unsuccessful bid in House to end US support for Yemen war: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/republicans-block-democratic-bill-to-end-us-role-in-yemen-war

Hopefuly similar action will see the light of day with the change in power.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the Democrats are in a tough spot - they need to investigate Trump. Trump and the Republicans are going to hammer them no matter how much or little they investigate. Republicans aren't going to work with Democrats and Trump is going to blame them for anything gone wrong. If there isn't a consistent message, some of the scandals and things they're fighting for might get lost in the mix.

The one thing I definitely want from the House is a strong, consistent investigative agenda.  Everybody knows -- or should know -- that they're not going to get much legislation done.  But they can be a badly-needed force for good on the oversight angle.

 

[Rove!]

Infrastructure, prison reform and pot legalization will likely get the support of the White House

 

[Rove!]

Infrastructure and Renewable Energy.  They can go hand in hand.

Renewable energy is an inevitability 

a product with a finite supply, will not be able to compete with a product with an infinite supply. 

 

[squistion]

Reps. Cummings, Nadler, Schiff, and Pallone are launching an investigation into Matthew Whitaker's involvement with World Patent Marketing, the company that allegedly bilked millions from consumers and suppressed criticism of their activities.

https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/top-dems-launch-investigation-of-acting-attorney-general-s-involvement-in

 

[Hilts]

The one thing I definitely want from the House is a strong, consistent investigative agenda.  Everybody knows -- or should know -- that they're not going to get much legislation done.  But they can be a badly-needed force for good on the oversight angle.

Very much this. I know some want the Democrats to go easy here but I don't understand that mentality in the least. 

They need to investigate every single legitimate issue from the WH. Yeah that's a lot of things to look into but that's just because the potus is comically corrupt. They shouldn't pull their punches just because Trump's corruption knows no limits. They'd be derelict in their duties if they ignored desperately needed investigations just to play nice in the hopes Trump might sign off on a piece of their legislative agenda. 

 

[Hilts]

They are starting with renewable energy and by protesting at Pelosi's office.  Love it.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those protesting at Pelosi's office. Interesting move by the young politician. 

 

[squistion]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those protesting at Pelosi's office. Interesting move by the young politician. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‏ @Ocasio2018                

Oh no! They discovered our vast conspiracy to take care of children and save the planet

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1062731138031120384 (photo of Fox News screen capture at link)

 

[Hilts]

Good news, guys! Mitch McConnell really wants to work together and celebrate the virtues of bipartisanship.  He wrote an Op-Ed titled “Will Dems work with us, or simply put partisan politics ahead of the country?”

 

[Henry Ford]

Infrastructure, prison reform and pot legalization will likely get the support of the White House

What would lead you to believe this?

 

[zftcg]

Hate to break it to you guys, but an infrastructure bill ain't happening. Aside from the general "if they're furr'it, I'm agin' it" incentive that pervades Congress these days, there's actually not a lot of agreement on the basic policy. Democrats want increased Federal spending and an infrastructure bank that would prioritize need over political considerations. Republicans want private-public partnerships that mostly award tax breaks to companies for projects they were going to do anyway, while doing nothing to push the low-ROI projects that companies don't want to invest in but that we desperately need.

 

[joffer]

Hate to break it to you guys, but an infrastructure bill ain't happening. Aside from the general "if they're furr'it, I'm agin' it" incentive that pervades Congress these days, there's actually not a lot of agreement on the basic policy. Democrats want increased Federal spending and an infrastructure bank that would prioritize need over political considerations. Republicans want private-public partnerships that mostly award tax breaks to companies for projects they were going to do anyway, while doing nothing to push the low-ROI projects that companies don't want to invest in but that we desperately need.

i think most of us get that what we're proposing ain't happening.  it's what they should propose and hopefully pass.  let the senate vote it down and they have to run on that in 2020.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What do you believe they should be doing, and which of their planned acts are you taking issue with?

Just to say @Hilts - asking a question like that is the perfect way to further the conversation and discussion and keep it on track when it could have gone off track. Good job. Thanks. 

 

[D Baseball]

Infrastructure, prison reform and pot legalization will likely get the support of the White House

What kind of prison reform are you talking about? 

 

[H Jass]

Gun reform, pleazzzz

 

[the moops]

What do you believe they should be doing, and which of their planned acts are you taking issue with?

Just to say @Hilts - asking a question like that is the perfect way to further the conversation and discussion and keep it on track when it could have gone off track. Good job. Thanks. 

Agreed. However, you probably should have quoted jonessed instead and asked what he was trying to accomplish with his one liner.

 

[zftcg]

i think most of us get that what we're proposing ain't happening.  it's what they should propose and hopefully pass.  let the senate vote it down and they have to run on that in 2020.

Most of us, yes. But not all.

I think an infrastructure bill could make it into law.  That’s a good place to start.

Not to pick on @jonessed. I think at first glance, it does seem like an area where both parties could come together. And I'm here to throw cold water on that.

In addition to the other reasons I mentioned, there's also this: A legislative deal requires a level of trust in the opposing side that they will go out and sell it to their base, and not try to undercut you after the fact. If you're Pelosi, would you ever in a million years trust Trump to keep his word on whatever he had agreed to once he faced any pushback from the Freedom Caucus?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Agreed. However, you probably should have quoted jonessed instead and asked what he was trying to accomplish with his one liner.

Actually I wanted to thank @Hilts , but thanks. Lots of posts pull things off track, unfortunately. I wanted to compliment something good I saw. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know we have a thread for legalizing marijuana but it seems like this is relevant here too. What are the obstacles in legalization? I ask as I was talking to an older gentleman the other day about this. 70 something years old, staunch Republican and also voted for Trump. Devout Christian and total non-alcohol drinker. Wouldn't recognize a marijuana plant if it was in front of him.

To my surprise, he was all for legalizing marijuana.

His take was basically, it's no different than alcohol. Control the sale and make it safer, control the quality of the product to protect the people, and tax it. 

It's also very much like the lottery for him. He's not for it and he's not buying a ticket for what he says is a "tax on people bad at math". But he'll take the tax revenue it generates and he's glad to have it help pay for his grand son to go to college. 

I was surprised by this. But it struck me when guys like him are thinking this way, TONS of people are thinking this way. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I know we have a thread for legalizing marijuana but it seems like this is relevant here too. What are the obstacles in legalization? I ask as I was talking to an older gentleman the other day about this. 70 something years old, staunch Republican and also voted for Trump. Devout Christian and total non-alcohol drinker. Wouldn't recognize a marijuana plant if it was in front of him.

To my surprise, he was all for legalizing marijuana.

His take was basically, it's no different than alcohol. Control the sale and make it safer, control the quality of the product to protect the people, and tax it. 

It's also very much like the lottery for him. He's not for it and he's not buying a ticket for what he says is a "tax on people bad at math". But he'll take the tax revenue it generates and he's glad to have it help pay for his grand son to go to college. 

I was surprised by this. But it struck me when guys like him are thinking this way, TONS of people are thinking this way. 

There's no obstacle that I know of other than political inertia.  Public opinion has shifted dramatically on this one.  This poll shows about 2:1 support for legalization.  I think it's weird that neither party has seized this as an issue yet.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

There's no obstacle that I know of other than political inertia.  Public opinion has shifted dramatically on this one.  This poll shows about 2:1 support for legalization.  I think it's weird that neither party has seized this as an issue yet.  

Thanks. That's what it seems to me too.

Granted, I talked to a sample size of 1 on this with the older gentleman but I was pretty surprised to hear he was for it. Just made me think "if he's for it, who is against it?"

 

[Joe Bryant]

I guess I'm cynical but I usually follow the money for motivations. And there seems like a ton of money to be made making marijuana legal. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

And sorry for the tangent. But it seems like a logical thing for legislation.

 

[toshiba]

I guess I'm cynical but I usually follow the money for motivations. And there seems like a ton of money to be made making marijuana legal. 

It is not the people that stand to make money that have the power, it is the people that currently have the money.  Those people are the pharmaceutical industry and they have a ton of money, I mean power!

 

[Joe Bryant]

It is not the people that stand to make money that have the power, it is the people that currently have the money.  Those people are the pharmaceutical industry and they have a ton of money, I mean power!

As in legal marijuana would mean less prescribed medicine as people would treat things with marijuana rather than the medicine they sell? 

I can see that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But on the converse, wouldn't the tobacco companies be going crazy to have this? They already have tons of the infrastructure in place.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I know we have a thread for legalizing marijuana but it seems like this is relevant here too. What are the obstacles in legalization? I ask as I was talking to an older gentleman the other day about this. 70 something years old, staunch Republican and also voted for Trump. Devout Christian and total non-alcohol drinker. Wouldn't recognize a marijuana plant if it was in front of him.

To my surprise, he was all for legalizing marijuana.

His take was basically, it's no different than alcohol. Control the sale and make it safer, control the quality of the product to protect the people, and tax it. 

It's also very much like the lottery for him. He's not for it and he's not buying a ticket for what he says is a "tax on people bad at math". But he'll take the tax revenue it generates and he's glad to have it help pay for his grand son to go to college. 

I was surprised by this. But it struck me when guys like him are thinking this way, TONS of people are thinking this way. 

Basically my stance on it.  I won't buy it or use it but I'll gladly take the tax revenue.  I'm more concerned with how the tax revenue will be used but your friends idea of lowering the cost of higher education is a great start.   Similar stance on prostitution.  It's going to happen no matter what so the government may as well regulate it and profit off of it.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Basically my stance on it.  I won't buy it or use it but I'll gladly take the tax revenue.  I'm more concerned with how the tax revenue will be used but your friends idea of lowering the cost of higher education is a great start.   Similar stance on prostitution.  It's going to happen no matter what so the government may as well regulate it and profit off of it.

Wine lover right here!

Also a heroin lover in case any wants to schedule a poppy tour.

Huge heroin fan.

Don’t use it, just like being around it.

Study it.

Appreciate it.

Use it sometimes.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Wine lover right here!

Also a heroin lover in case any wants to schedule a poppy tour.

Huge heroin fan.

Don’t use it, just like being around it.

Study it.

Appreciate it.

Use it sometimes.

Not sure I understand how this relates. Can you elaborate on how this relates to marijuana legalization?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Basically my stance on it.  I won't buy it or use it but I'll gladly take the tax revenue.  I'm more concerned with how the tax revenue will be used but your friends idea of lowering the cost of higher education is a great start.   Similar stance on prostitution.  It's going to happen no matter what so the government may as well regulate it and profit off of it.

Again, it seems like most sides agree on this. Seems too easy. 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Not sure I understand how this relates. Can you elaborate on how this relates to marijuana legalization?

Sorry.  That was a quote from Roger Smith.

I should have cited him.  My bad.

 

[Hilts]

I know we have a thread for legalizing marijuana but it seems like this is relevant here too. What are the obstacles in legalization? I ask as I was talking to an older gentleman the other day about this. 70 something years old, staunch Republican and also voted for Trump. Devout Christian and total non-alcohol drinker. Wouldn't recognize a marijuana plant if it was in front of him.

To my surprise, he was all for legalizing marijuana.

His take was basically, it's no different than alcohol. Control the sale and make it safer, control the quality of the product to protect the people, and tax it. 

It's also very much like the lottery for him. He's not for it and he's not buying a ticket for what he says is a "tax on people bad at math". But he'll take the tax revenue it generates and he's glad to have it help pay for his grand son to go to college. 

I was surprised by this. But it struck me when guys like him are thinking this way, TONS of people are thinking this way. 

I think it's something people generally just accept as being part of the Democratic party agenda. Sessions pushed to bring back the DARE program. Republican voters (and all voters) support legalizing it, but the Republican politicians have been slow to climb aboard this wagon. The states that have legalized marijuana are California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Nevada, Maine, Michigan, and Alaska. The majority of those either lean or are strongly blue states. From October: Congressman Issues 'Blueprint To Legalize Marijuana' For Democratic House In 2019

I think the best chances of it gaining a quick legalization are for it to remain relatively apolitical with neither party making it a focal point.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I guess I'm cynical but I usually follow the money for motivations. And there seems like a ton of money to be made making marijuana legal. 

Follow the money-

You have private for profit prison populations to maintain.  You have cities and towns that profit from property seizures.  You have the alcohol industry.  Basically my point is that existing, entrenched money is a lot more difficult to defeat than it is to sell on the idea of "new money".

There is also another issue I believe is in play.   I have often asserted that we should not legislate morality.  That things should be legal or illegal (or regulated) based on cold cost-benefit analysis for society.  (I admit I have some items that I support being illegal but can't really articulate very well how the cost are all that bad.)   Those that disagree are also entrenched in not losing another thing that used to be prohibited.  First gay marriage and now drugs!  It is too fast.   Especially one where a very real cost can be expressed with legalization.  Would this just be a slippery slope to the next one where those costs are less identifiable?  Would losing this prohibition just mean losing prohibitions on gambling?  On prostitution?  And if morality alone is not enough how do we ban abortions?  Not many says such things out loud.  I'm not even sure that many think this consciously.  But I think somewhere in the back of the head of those that believe that a role of government is to dictate morality one way or another is this thought.  Not to mention just those that respond poorly to any change.

 

[Thunderlips]

I think an infrastructure bill could make it into law.  That’s a good place to start.

It's not just about bringing up legislation that could make it into law now.  It's also about bringing up legislation that could make it into law if the American public votes Democrat in the next election.  

 

[the rover]

And get charged with a violation most times. Like I said ,

theres no one in prison for smoking or possessing small quantities of pot. It's been effectively decriminalized. But they should go ahead and go all the way and legalize it. 

this isn't true.   22 states have decriminalized pot, but not even all of those freed people jailed for marijuana convictions.   there are still plenty of people incarcerated at both the state and federal level for possession.    

even where weed has been legalized, only a handful of states have taken action or even have a process to expunge records so that people don't have criminal records for possession, which affects their ability to get jobs, housing, financial aid, etc.

 

[toshiba]

It is not the people that stand to make money that have the power, it is the people that currently have the money.  Those people are the pharmaceutical industry and they have a ton of money, I mean power!

As in legal marijuana would mean less prescribed medicine as people would treat things with marijuana rather than the medicine they sell? 

I can see that.

I think that would be big-pharma's reason for fighting it.

 

[D Baseball]

this isn't true.   22 states have decriminalized pot, but not even all of those freed people jailed for marijuana convictions.   there are still plenty of people incarcerated at both the state and federal level for possession.    

even where weed has been legalized, only a handful of states have taken action or even have a process to expunge records so that people don't have criminal records for possession, which affects their ability to get jobs, housing, financial aid, etc.

I doubt anyone is doing federal time for possession of marijuana for personal use. A couple of pounds? Yeah. But then you're a drug dealer. Bit of a difference. And if there were, don't you think Obama would have pardoned them? It's a myth.  

 

[Guinis72]

Anytime the House blocks one of Trump's bills, they should say matter of factly "We're just following the precedent set forth by the McConnell Doctrine". (similar to the made up "Biden Rule")

 

[the rover]

I doubt anyone is doing federal time for possession of marijuana for personal use. A couple of pounds? Yeah. But then you're a drug dealer. Bit of a difference. And if there were, don't you think Obama would have pardoned them? It's a myth.  

You're making assumptions which aren't based in fact.  There's no reason to discuss this, or anything else, with someone who just makes stuff up and declares it to be true.