NYT/AP: Partisan Dispute Derails Ethics Reform

[DeepModem Mom]

Partisan Dispute Derails Ethics Reform
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 18, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats' hopes of starting off their control of the Senate with a far-reaching commitment to ethics reform received a painful jolt Wednesday, their ethics and lobbying legislation sidetracked by a dispute with Republicans.

Democrats failed to clear a crucial legislative hurdle when the Senate voted 51-46 to proceed with the bill that would have reduced the influence of lobbyists in shaping legislation and forced lawmakers to be more open about the pet projects they slip into legislation. Sixty-five votes were needed to advance the legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., left the door open for another vote on the issue Thursday afternoon, but getting the bill back on track would require resolution of what appeared to be an intractable dispute.

Republicans voted against the motion to proceed because they were upset that Democrats were blocking an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would have given the president authority, with the approval of Congress, to single out individual spending items in legislation for elimination....

***

Both parties blamed the other for the temporary demise of what they hailed, when debate on the legislation started a week ago, as a model for bipartisan cooperation....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Senate-Ethics.html

[Erika]

1. The GOP are obstructing

They will get another slapdown in 2008.

[magellan]

2. All right, I'm confused again

Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled that giving the president the line item veto would be unconstitutional? Or does that only apply to budget legislation?

[rodeodance]

3. gawd-------and this is the Senate bill 01---there first one!

[w4rma]

4. Republicans are demanding a line item veto? The heck with that.

The GOP just doesn't want any ethics legislation passed.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Actually, Jugghead Gregg wants a 'special ethics exemption" for landlords

who toss widows out of their homes. He needs it to cover the crappy karma he earned from doing just that in New Hampshire.

[bemildred]

6. Sounds like bullshit to me.

"that would have given the president authority, with the approval of Congress"

So Congress can give him prior consent to veto line items. Perfect for all the posturing Buffoons in Congress that want to look nice without doing anything of substance or risking a stand on something that matters.