Skip to comments.Exclusive: Legislative Summary, Full Text of Senate Debt Deal Revealed
Posted on 10/16/2013 3:24:39 PM PDT by servo1969
Breitbart News has obtained a legislative summary of the provisions in the Senate deal to reopen government and extend the debt ceiling. Breitbart News has also obtained a copy of the legislative text. Currently, Senate staff are able to review the summary and legislative text in the Senate cloakroom, but aren't allowed to retain a copy or make it public. In the interest of transparency, we have included the document below.
[8 page document]
As expected, the deal provides full back-pay for furloughed federal workers who haven't been at work for two weeks. It also provides back-pay, though, for state government workers who were furloughed because their work is supported by federal grants.
Full legislative text of the agreement is posted below.
[35 page document]
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
(image courtesy of Breitbart.com)
Extends debt ceiling through Feb 7(Bammy wanted a year)
FEDGUVINC is funded through Jan 15.
A new conference set up for long term entitlement reform headed by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray(starts Dec 13)
If no cuts are decided on, sequestrations remains in effect (a good thing-they really kick in Jan. 2014. actual real cut in spending, not just in rates of growth)
Patty Murray... I wouldn’t want Ryan’s job here. Its going to be like talking to a post. Dumbest Mom in Tennis Shoes.
But yeah, listening to that is going to grind on the nerves.
I haven’t heard that there’s another round of automatic cuts coming. Do you have any info on that?
Isn’t that just so special they got a free paid vacation on the taxpayers.
Those cuts are built into the Sequestration. They go up over time, not sure if it is one year increments or more frequently. But they are real..and unless sequestration is overcome with a real budget, they are automatic.
Curious about the provision that starts on page 25 or 26 that is titled something like prevent default act. Read something earlier in the day that this section gives the President authority to authorize spending above the debt limit and the Congress has 14 days to disapprove the President’s action but that the President can veto.
If that’s the case that seems to give the President power to spend well above the debt limit and Congress would need to vote it down AND override a veto to stop it. That seems to give the executive branch huge spending power outside the control of Congress. Anyone read this section and have any thoughts?
Lets start that conversation by acknowledging we arent going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants... bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society. Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors. [but hes not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that would be unconstitutional.
The Representatives of the House have just been reduced to lower class citizens — yahoos and step-and-fetch-its.
Senate and Executive will tell them what to do and they best do it.
I expect them to be seeing a lot of the middle finger now from anyone they call before their committees.
They have lost all respect — as if they had any more to lose.
It’s just what I read hours ago in a blurb from someone reporting on the deal ... the blurb was right about the deal in terms of the dates, the income verification on Obamacare subsidies, and then the mention of this act. His report was what I wrote ... which seems very unconstitutional ... not that that really means anything anymore in D.C. Now that the actual text is out curious of anyone’s take that is familiar with reading this type stuff.