Senate Bi-partisan Highway Bill S 1813

[Ausm]

What's the odds that the House GOP will pass any version of a Highway infrastructure Bill to send back to the Senate? I don't think the odds are good especially with Boner's leadership skills.

read on:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74038.html

 

[Dulanic]

He will punt it down the road /w cracks and potholes as most politicans do. They believe they will have a larger majority come November. Don't believe that will happen for a second, but I know it is what they believe.

 

[EagleKeeper]

the current menu of options laid out before him stink.
Boehner has about five directions he could take, each with its own set of problems.

1. a nearly five-year, $260 billion bill, which factions of his own party and pretty much the entire Democratic caucus dislike and have rejected.
2. a truncated, 18-month version of the longer bill, which the GOP also has already rejected.
3. two-year, $109 billion bill the Senate passed Wednesday by a 74-22 vote, and modify it, but that would give Democrats a quiver full of arrows, both rhetorically and in an eventual conference committee
4. mystery option, behind which support would have to be built in a short time frame
5. punt, possibly into next year. In that case, lawmakers would have to extend surface transportation programs that otherwise are to expire at the end of the month — and there’s no guarantee people would agree to that, either.

Option #3 might be best for the country; but politically, it puts the control back in the Democrats

 

[zsdersw]

What's the odds that the House GOP will pass any version of a Highway infrastructure Bill to send back to the Senate? I don't think the odds are good especially with Boner's leadership skills.

read on:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74038.html

Another anti-GOP post/thread from a Democratic shill. Color me surprised.

 

[MovingTarget]

The makeup of the House will be interesting come 2013. Boehner should cut his losses now and get the Senate-approved bill to pass. Otherwise, Democrats will hammer the GOP for focusing too much on social "Issues!!(tm)" instead of the nuts and bolts of running the country. The Democrats will have a much better shot of getting more of their priorities passed post-election.

 

[Ausm]

1. a nearly five-year, $260 billion bill, which factions of his own party and pretty much the entire Democratic caucus dislike and have rejected.
2. a truncated, 18-month version of the longer bill, which the GOP also has already rejected.
3. two-year, $109 billion bill the Senate passed Wednesday by a 74-22 vote, and modify it, but that would give Democrats a quiver full of arrows, both rhetorically and in an eventual conference committee
4. mystery option, behind which support would have to be built in a short time frame
5. punt, possibly into next year. In that case, lawmakers would have to extend surface transportation programs that otherwise are to expire at the end of the month — and there’s no guarantee people would agree to that, either.

Option #3 might be best for the country; but politically, it puts the control back in the Democrats

I like option 3 personally and I bet that wouldn't surprise you!

 

[Ausm]

Another anti-GOP post/thread from a Democratic shill. Color me surprised.

Anti-GOP?? Hardly , in fact,I am impressed that some Republicans in the Senate reached a Bi-Partisan agreement. What I like that most about it tho is that those Senate Republicans just put a gun to Boner's head and to that if that is ironic then I don't know what irony is.

 

[nonlnear]

The highway bill should be amended to increase gas taxes so that it is revenue neutral. That would be a step in the right direction, but alas the Dems don't have the stones for it. Especially not in an election year.

 

[MovingTarget]

The highway bill should be amended to increase gas taxes so that it is revenue neutral. That would be a step in the right direction, but alas the Dems don't have the stones for it. Especially not in an election year.

They could possibly get away with doing so as part of fiscal prudence or much-need infrastructure improvement/maintainence, but if they did, the usual caucophony of "OBAMA WANTS YOUR GAS PRICES TO GO UP! SOCIALISM! LIBERAL PLOT! WHARRRGARBLE!" would predictably ensue. The people could support this if the discussion were to be kept rational and free of the usual partisan rhetoric. The rest....are just details...