This right here is why I find Gabe's daily column so appealing. Thank you, Gabe, for taking the time to help us understand this quiet yet incredibly important part of the legislative process.
“In Washington, this process of sitting down with the parliamentarian is known as a “Byrd bath.” Provisions stricken out of a package are known as ‘Byrd droppings.’”God I love this country.
“Elizabeth doesn’t like if you have a provision that literally only affects one entity in the entire country,” he told me. “Even if it has a budgetary effect, she’s like, that’s my proof that you’re doing policy and you’re not doing budgetary impact.” (Provisions in the GOP megabill defunding Planned Parenthood — which MacDonough has yet to rule on — could be implicated by this rule of thumb.)
That's because items like that are called Bills of Attainder, and they are specifically and by name outlawed in the Constitution. Why? Because Bs of A are an example of the sort of tyranny the Framers of the Constitution were opposed to.
So, question about the AI regulation “pause” of ten 10!!) years, on the state level, in exchange for broadband dollars: to freeze regulation of AI for even 1 month would seem alarming and jarring. (Not that the industry is being strangled in regulation right now but still, some is better than none, and there’s always the threat of more that might also have some kind of effect.)
My question is, this is such an obviously cynical, artificial cloaking of an explosive issue into a banal monetary disguise, why is this not identified as such by the parliamentarian, and consequently rejected?
I’m one of your conservative readers. Your liberal bias often shows through your columns, but, I have to say, Gabe, this is an extraordinarily neutral piece for you. Thank you and congratulations on this one!!
I'm a LIB(ertarian) and I usually don't think Gabe rips into the bizarre side of the current "conservative" actions/behaviors nearly as much as warranted. But, like you, I find this post neutral. However, not 'extraordinarily' so, as Gabe is ordinarily very conscious of the value of constructive journalism, which requires fair treatment of all sides of an issue.
Agree with you, as some of Gabe's writings feel like they lean towards the right, enough that at times out of irritation I stop reading for a while, so it's amusing to see that someone else thinks Gabe has "liberal bias." Walking a fine line and for this column, Gabe succeeds in being neutral.
Hands down, probably one of the best posts I’ve ever read! Thank you for educating many to the importance of this position and for reassuring citizens that there are some things that actually work pretty well in DC. Thanks again to the late Senator Byrd 🇺🇸
This right here is why I find Gabe's daily column so appealing. Thank you, Gabe, for taking the time to help us understand this quiet yet incredibly important part of the legislative process.
I agree. Excellent work Gabe as usual
“In Washington, this process of sitting down with the parliamentarian is known as a “Byrd bath.” Provisions stricken out of a package are known as ‘Byrd droppings.’”God I love this country.
Robert C. Byrd was a democrat, not a republican
“Elizabeth doesn’t like if you have a provision that literally only affects one entity in the entire country,” he told me. “Even if it has a budgetary effect, she’s like, that’s my proof that you’re doing policy and you’re not doing budgetary impact.” (Provisions in the GOP megabill defunding Planned Parenthood — which MacDonough has yet to rule on — could be implicated by this rule of thumb.)
That's because items like that are called Bills of Attainder, and they are specifically and by name outlawed in the Constitution. Why? Because Bs of A are an example of the sort of tyranny the Framers of the Constitution were opposed to.
Very interesting and informative. The minutiae of Senate rules and the interpretation of them never ceases to amaze.
So, question about the AI regulation “pause” of ten 10!!) years, on the state level, in exchange for broadband dollars: to freeze regulation of AI for even 1 month would seem alarming and jarring. (Not that the industry is being strangled in regulation right now but still, some is better than none, and there’s always the threat of more that might also have some kind of effect.)
My question is, this is such an obviously cynical, artificial cloaking of an explosive issue into a banal monetary disguise, why is this not identified as such by the parliamentarian, and consequently rejected?
Perhaps both parties are party to the PARTY ! Party on !¡
Thanks for another good round of teaching, Gabe.
Nobody works as hard as Gabe. You know you’re going to learn something before you even start to read.
Greate article Gabe!
I’m one of your conservative readers. Your liberal bias often shows through your columns, but, I have to say, Gabe, this is an extraordinarily neutral piece for you. Thank you and congratulations on this one!!
I'm a LIB(ertarian) and I usually don't think Gabe rips into the bizarre side of the current "conservative" actions/behaviors nearly as much as warranted. But, like you, I find this post neutral. However, not 'extraordinarily' so, as Gabe is ordinarily very conscious of the value of constructive journalism, which requires fair treatment of all sides of an issue.
Agree with you, as some of Gabe's writings feel like they lean towards the right, enough that at times out of irritation I stop reading for a while, so it's amusing to see that someone else thinks Gabe has "liberal bias." Walking a fine line and for this column, Gabe succeeds in being neutral.
I do not agree at all……
This was very informative and helpful. Glad I subscribed here.
Can Trump fire her? Sorry if you addressed this in your article. Thank you for your detailed newsletter.
Hands down, probably one of the best posts I’ve ever read! Thank you for educating many to the importance of this position and for reassuring citizens that there are some things that actually work pretty well in DC. Thanks again to the late Senator Byrd 🇺🇸
Good job!
With all due respect, I find it pretty unbelievable that JD Vance won't heed the call and say "nah, we roll".
Fascinating! Thank you Gabe.
Excellent piece. Senator Byrd was a Democrat.