And with any budget bill, reconciliation can be used in the Senate, where they'll only need 51 votes for passage. Republicans won't be able to filibuster is they used this process. Something to watch for.
They usuallyrevise the exemptions and the rules when they amend the bill, the first draft is just the base and then all the stuff they want it to cover they will hit it up later on in the process.
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't heard of more than a small handful of Senate Democrats coming out against this as of right now. But many have still not made their position known yet, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
The prison planet article that states the tax in the final agreement has been up since 10 est I believe and during that time I've seen the draft changed 3 times. As for Obama by passing congress he could only do that if he claimed that it was for the good of the stratosphere and there would have to be hard proof. Also the only way that he could agree to it with out issue is if congress passed something that says that in the name of climate change or bank bailouts for example, Obama would be allowed to sign in to an international agreement and it would be law without congress since they gave him direct consent to do so.
but congress would have to allow him to do so and only for a single reason, such as I mentioned there is already a law that allows him to sign if there is a threat to the stratosphere, and according to science there is none.
Which means that I've already started the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Defazio has said, the only way for a U.S. citizen to dodge the transaction tax, would be to move to another country and obtain citizenship there. Canada has repeatedly stated they want no part of a transaction tax. Expect to see many U.S. citizens like myself, who live near the Canadian border to jump ship if this nonsense happens.
Be careful though. If you look at it this way, if the US happens to do it, that would be great for those in EU who want to do this tax and they will, then Canada will weigh how much business they will take in compared to how much revenue could be from a tax. I think all countries say one thing but they all want revenue. So I think once a big country blinks like ther US then you will see countries start to follow. Canada says they are against it now but.. ... THEY HAVE A PASSED A MOTION ON THE BOOKS TO ENACT A TOBIN TAX IN CONCERT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY M-239 Canada has shown world leadership in adopting a motion calling for an international tax on financial transactions, NDP financial institutions critic Lorne Nystrom said today. Motion M-239 was passed by Parliament last night with a vote of 164 to 83. It read: "That in the opinion of the House, the government should enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community". This was passed in 1999 , so it is on the books. Just Like Belgium has one, so if global agreement is reached they will both enact a tax So be careful about Canada, cause what you hear aint what your gonna get.
The more I think about the transaction tax I think our next battle lies with the FY2011 budget (as was mentioned in the WSJ piece). The dems are licking their chops over that $150B revenue number they keep throwing around. That perceived pot of honey can go a long ways towards wiping out the deficit (or I mean paying for new social programs). We all know the net number is nowhere near $150B (if not net negative). I don't like the idea of the Senate being able to pass a budget bill via reconciliaton (with a simple 51 vote majority). I haven't fully confirmed this yet but I believe this is the case. I'm going to delve into this issue a little further this weekend and see what I can find out. -Guru