13 Republican Congressmen Save Pelosi, Biden on $1.2T Infrastructure Vote

 

Six Democrats voted against the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan (BIF) late Friday night, which should have killed the legislation. Instead, 13 Republicans rode to Nancy Pelosi’s rescue and voted yes. The BIF passed the Senate nearly two months ago, so the legislation will head straight to the White House for the President’s signature.

Here are the Republicans for Pelosi:

  • Rep. Don Bacon (R–NE)
  • Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R–PA)
  • Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R–NY)
  • Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R–OH)
  • Rep. John Katko (R–NY)
  • Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R–IL)
  • Rep. Nicole Malliatokis (R–NY)
  • Rep. David McKinley (R–WV)
  • Rep. Tom Reed (R–NY)
  • Rep. Chris Smith (R–NJ)
  • Rep. Fred Upton (R–MI)
  • Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R–NJ)
  • Rep. Don Young (R–AK)

Despite Democrats not having the necessary support, the final vote was 228-206 thanks to these 13 Republicans. Each should be primaried, at least those who aren’t retiring. And it’s time for Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–CA) to be removed as House Minority Leader since he has demonstrated brutal incompetence.

For the record, here are the six Democrats who voted against the bill:

  • Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D–NY)
  • Rep. Cori Bush (D–MO)
  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY)
  • Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–MN)
  • Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–MA)
  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D–MI)
Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 874 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    Do the Koch brothers, Miriam Adelson, Rupert Murdoch, and Steve Wynn belong to me?

    Are they still around?

    At one of the side-gatherings of the Republican National Convention in 2016, I came across a water bottle on the ground next to a grumpy old man in a wheelchair. I picked it up and asked the guy if he had dropped the bottle. He looked at me kind of irritably and grumbled “No, that’s not mine,” and waved his hand dismissively. Little did I know that was Sheldon Adelson, the 17th richest man in the world at the time. Meanwhile, my wife was talking up his wife, Miriam, who is an Israeli, and showing her my artwork in hopes of landing a portrait commission.

    Later that night, Adelson famously refused entry into his apartment party to Ted Cruz, for telling the delegates to “vote your conscience.” Adelson died this year but his wife is still going strong. She’s a lot younger, and a medical doctor.

    That’s a good story. I’m sure he was an extremely unpleasant person.

    • #811
  2. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    The Voting Right Act and it’s requirement for Majority Minority Districts would tend to disagree.

    Oh, is that where that came from? I had been under the impression that it was a court ruling. My bad, probably.

    a combination of both.

     

    • #812
  3. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    It is really hard to draw districts that don’t gerrymander somewhat, especially considering that the courts have mandated a certain amount of gerrymandering to start with.

    I agree that mandated gerrymanders muddy the water, but apart from that it’s a deliberate attempt to dilute or isolate one group of voters’ political influence. Maybe it’s hard to resist, but it can’t be that hard to just not make that deliberate attempt.

    Wrt increasing the number of votes that are meaningful – yes, that’s definitely hard to do.

    One suggestion I’ve heard is larger, multi-member districts – basically the Israeli approach which seems really good to me.

    (Kalamazoo may also find it onerous to be ruled by you?)

    I’ve seen where a computer program can be designed to draw Congressional Districts. It completely takes out the political element.

    That is how it should be done. 

    • #813
  4. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Any cursory look at the top ten or twenty richest people in America shows that about 80% of them are staunch Democrats.

    Interesting skew. Why do progressives (?) make so much more money?

    Because allying with the totalitarian government is the path to riches. This is socialism 101, guys.

     

    It could also be that instead of worshipping the market, they exploit it.

    • #814
  5. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    Codename: Bunsen Honeydew (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Some of the non-infrastructure pork that makes up about three-fourths of the bill just passed includes:

    • $50 million for Central Utah Project Completion (Mitt Romney’s payout)
    • {SNIP}

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/cbo-estimates-infrastructure-bill-would-add-256-billion-to-deficits-11628196739

    One little clarification to this list. The Central Utah Project is definitely an infrastructure project. The money will go to building more reservoirs and pipelines in Eastern Utah to help move water to the Wasatch Front, which is desperately needed. It’s been in the works since the 1950’s when the initial authorization was given.

    The idea that pork is all wasteful spending is wrong. It is used to get votes, but the projects often have merit.

    • #815
  6. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Any cursory look at the top ten or twenty richest people in America shows that about 80% of them are staunch Democrats.

    Interesting skew. Why do progressives (?) make so much more money?

    Because allying with the totalitarian government is the path to riches. This is socialism 101, guys.

     

    It could also be that instead of worshipping the market, they exploit it.

    The problem is we don’t have free markets. 

    • #816
  7. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    He does indeed have right-wing tendencies. Look up his views on welfare. He thinks, like nearly all the people on this site, that welfare is an indulgence which makes people lazy.

    What do you think it is?

    An assistance to help people hone their skills or continue their jobs search so they don’t become sex workers or in general work jobs that are far below their potential.

    Setting aside whether or not unemployment or welfare actually works out as intended, the “lying flat” thing is about young people in China that hate communism and they have just decided they are only going to work minimally and not procreate slaves for the state.

    He is a fool for thinking that welfare has much to do with that. Also, I wouldn’t call China communist. The US also has low birth-rates, and an outside observer could say, “Young people in America don’t want to procreate because they decided they are going to work minimally and not procreate workers for a corporation or small business tyrant.”

    • #817
  8. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    Also, I wouldn’t call China communist. The US also has low birth-rates, and an outside observer could say, “Young people in America don’t want to procreate because they decided they are going to work minimally and not procreate workers for a corporation or small business tyrant.”

    Fair enough, China is really a bunch of effing mafia. For the purposes of this conversation, I don’t think it matters. I am only repeating what one analyst said about the term lying flat. You are making some great big deal comparison between the United States and China and I am not. It’s gratuitous.

    • #818
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    Also, I wouldn’t call China communist. The US also has low birth-rates, and an outside observer could say, “Young people in America don’t want to procreate because they decided they are going to work minimally and not procreate workers for a corporation or small business tyrant.”

    Fair enough, China is really a bunch of effing mafia. For the purposes of this conversation, I don’t think it matters. I am only repeating what one analyst said about the term lying flat. You are making some great big deal comparison between the United States and China and I am not. It’s gratuitous.

    ChinaCop.

    • #819
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    It is really hard to draw districts that don’t gerrymander somewhat, especially considering that the courts have mandated a certain amount of gerrymandering to start with.

    I agree that mandated gerrymanders muddy the water, but apart from that it’s a deliberate attempt to dilute or isolate one group of voters’ political influence. Maybe it’s hard to resist, but it can’t be that hard to just not make that deliberate attempt.

    Wrt increasing the number of votes that are meaningful – yes, that’s definitely hard to do.

    One suggestion I’ve heard is larger, multi-member districts – basically the Israeli approach which seems really good to me.

    (Kalamazoo may also find it onerous to be ruled by you?)

    I’ve seen where a computer program can be designed to draw Congressional Districts. It completely takes out the political element.

    That is how it should be done.

    It doesn’t take out the political element. It only disguises it as a computer issue.  The computer program needs instructions as to which factors to consider, and those are political choices.   And then what do you do when the computer program comes up with ten possible redistrictings that all meet the politically agreed-upon criteria? Start tossing a coin?  

    • #820
  11. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    They need to double the size of the house of representatives.

    • #821
  12. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    They need to double the size of the house of representatives.

    I have zero faith in any initiative which changes anything anywhere.  Our own party is co-opted by the Democrats — everything which changes will just turn to garbage.  There is no one to bell the cat.

    • #822
  13. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    It is really hard to draw districts that don’t gerrymander somewhat, especially considering that the courts have mandated a certain amount of gerrymandering to start with.

    I agree that mandated gerrymanders muddy the water, but apart from that it’s a deliberate attempt to dilute or isolate one group of voters’ political influence. Maybe it’s hard to resist, but it can’t be that hard to just not make that deliberate attempt.

    Wrt increasing the number of votes that are meaningful – yes, that’s definitely hard to do.

    One suggestion I’ve heard is larger, multi-member districts – basically the Israeli approach which seems really good to me.

    (Kalamazoo may also find it onerous to be ruled by you?)

    I’ve seen where a computer program can be designed to draw Congressional Districts. It completely takes out the political element.

    That is how it should be done.

    It doesn’t take out the political element. It only disguises it as a computer issue. The computer program needs instructions as to which factors to consider, and those are political choices. And then what do you do when the computer program comes up with ten possible redistrictings that all meet the politically agreed-upon criteria? Start tossing a coin?

    Delegate it to a panel of academics with the computer and allow for the legislature to vote on it. If it fails to get a majority vote, then leave the districts unchanged. Are there any legal issues with this?

    • #823
  14. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    Delegate it to a panel of academics

    This is EXACTLY the wrong idea for a Republic.

    • #824
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

     

     

     

     

    • #825
  16. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    BDB (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    Also, I wouldn’t call China communist. The US also has low birth-rates, and an outside observer could say, “Young people in America don’t want to procreate because they decided they are going to work minimally and not procreate workers for a corporation or small business tyrant.”

    Fair enough, China is really a bunch of effing mafia. For the purposes of this conversation, I don’t think it matters. I am only repeating what one analyst said about the term lying flat. You are making some great big deal comparison between the United States and China and I am not. It’s gratuitous.

    ChinaCop.

    BFD.  In China, fascists call themselves “Communists”.  In the U.S., fascists call themselves “progressives”.

    • #826
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I think the Chinese government is most realistically described as fascist or mafia. Nobody ever talks like that, though.

    • #827
  18. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    He does indeed have right-wing tendencies. Look up his views on welfare. He thinks, like nearly all the people on this site, that welfare is an indulgence which makes people lazy.

    What do you think it is?

    An assistance to help people hone their skills or continue their jobs search so they don’t become sex workers or in general work jobs that are far below their potential.

    You’ve just described about 1% of all welfare cases.  The overwhelming amount of welfare goes to people who either don’t feel like getting off their ass to go find a job, or who don’t need the money in the first place.  Fully 1/3 of all Americans are receiving welfare from the government currently.  That specifically does not include Social Security payments.  Entitlement programs take up 2/3rds of the Federal spending.  This is appalling.  We have grown into a European-type welfare state, just not to the level that Europeans have so far.

    • #828
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Fully 1/3 of all Americans are receiving welfare from the government currently.

    That would include what supports? It sounds quite high. 

    • #829
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Fully 1/3 of all Americans are receiving welfare from the government currently.

    That would include what supports? It sounds quite high.

    Lots of people receive food stamps, not so much “direct payments” or “cash.”

    • #830
  21. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

     

    Indeed, and what did the Democrat party during the Gilded Age want? They wanted small government, a coalition with classical liberals in the North, and for the government to look the other way as the rural whites reimposed their dominion over newly freed Blacks. That does not sound like anything that the Democratic Party of today would support.

    I think the only difference here would be that the modern Democrat Party wants to impose their dominion over Blacks at the Federal level instead of at the State level.

    So the Democratic Party today wants small government and cares about what people who call themselves classical liberals think?

    I have no idea what your sentence means or has to do with the topic.

    Democrats today support a huge centralized federal government that controls every little stinkin’ aspect of people’s lives.  This is at odds with freedom.  They wish to impose their dominion and their will over everyone (Blacks included) to an inordinate degree.  The only two areas where Democrats support freedom is the freedom to take narcotic drugs (except cigarettes of course!) and the freedom to murder unborn children (though it has accelerated now into support for killing newborn infants).  You might even include the freedom to “loot and riot” now.

    • #831
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):
    He does indeed have right-wing tendencies. Look up his views on welfare. He thinks, like nearly all the people on this site, that welfare is an indulgence which makes people lazy.

    What do you think it is?

    An assistance to help people hone their skills or continue their jobs search so they don’t become sex workers or in general work jobs that are far below their potential.

    You’ve just described about 1% of all welfare cases. The overwhelming amount of welfare goes to people who either don’t feel like getting off their ass to go find a job, or who don’t need the money in the first place. Fully 1/3 of all Americans are receiving welfare from the government currently. That specifically does not include Social Security payments. Entitlement programs take up 2/3rds of the Federal spending. This is appalling. We have grown into a European-type welfare state, just not to the level that Europeans have so far.

    https://www.realvision.com/shows/mike-green-in-conversation/videos/is-the-golden-age-of-liberal-capitalism-over

    • #832
  23. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Viruscop (View Comment):

     Also, I wouldn’t call China communist.

    That would be big news to just about every other person on Earth.

    • #833
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Also, I wouldn’t call China communist.

    That would be big news to just about every other person on Earth.

    China really is authoritarian capitalist with some socialist history and lag these days. 

    • #834
  25. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    The US also has low birth-rates, and an outside observer could say, “Young people in America don’t want to procreate because they decided they are going to work minimally and not procreate workers for a corporation or small business tyrant.”

    The U.S. doesn’t have particularly low birth rates.  They are just a smidgen below or at replacement rate.  And most of the people having babies are not rich.  The birth rate among the rich in America is very low.

    • #835
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    I’m enjoying the Commie-splaining that China isn’t Communist.

    • #836
  27. Viruscop Inactive
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Indeed, and what did the Democrat party during the Gilded Age want? They wanted small government, a coalition with classical liberals in the North, and for the government to look the other way as the rural whites reimposed their dominion over newly freed Blacks. That does not sound like anything that the Democratic Party of today would support.

    I think the only difference here would be that the modern Democrat Party wants to impose their dominion over Blacks at the Federal level instead of at the State level.

    So the Democratic Party today wants small government and cares about what people who call themselves classical liberals think?

    I have no idea what your sentence means or has to do with the topic.

    You said that the only difference was that Democrats wanted to impose their dominion over Blacks at the federal level instead of at the state level, which would imply that you think the Democratic Party still wants small government and an alliance with classical liberals.

    • #837
  28. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Fully 1/3 of all Americans are receiving welfare from the government currently.

    That would include what supports? It sounds quite high.

    When I first discovered this, I was blown away, too.  But nobody else seems to care about it and so it is not widely publicized.  Even when I’ve mentioned it before on this forum nobody seems to notice.  Here are just a couple of links to back this up.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/09/romney-says-47-percent-of-americans-receive-direct-government-assistance-is-that-true.html

    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/521-percent-kids-live-households-getting-means-tested-government/

    Forbes magazine estimates that if you include entitlement programs like Social Security, then more than half of Americans are now getting payments from the government as of 2014.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/07/02/weve-crossed-the-tipping-point-most-americans-now-receive-government-benefits/?sh=29df9f2f3e6c

    I live in a poor big city, which is not representative of the rest of America (though it is of big cities), but at my local grocery store, fully half of all shoppers pay for their food with a government credit card.  but don’t take my word on this.  Go looking up the statistics for yourself.  It is eye-opening!

    • #838
  29. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Fully 1/3 of all Americans are receiving welfare from the government currently.

    That would include what supports? It sounds quite high.

    Lots of people receive food stamps, not so much “direct payments” or “cash.”

    It doesn’t matter if it is in the form of cash or food stamps.  It is still a transfer of real wealth to individuals who did not earn it.

    • #839
  30. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    It is really hard to draw districts that don’t gerrymander somewhat, especially considering that the courts have mandated a certain amount of gerrymandering to start with.

    I agree that mandated gerrymanders muddy the water, but apart from that it’s a deliberate attempt to dilute or isolate one group of voters’ political influence. Maybe it’s hard to resist, but it can’t be that hard to just not make that deliberate attempt.

    Wrt increasing the number of votes that are meaningful – yes, that’s definitely hard to do.

    One suggestion I’ve heard is larger, multi-member districts – basically the Israeli approach which seems really good to me.

    (Kalamazoo may also find it onerous to be ruled by you?)

    I’ve seen where a computer program can be designed to draw Congressional Districts. It completely takes out the political element.

    That is how it should be done.

    It doesn’t take out the political element. It only disguises it as a computer issue. The computer program needs instructions as to which factors to consider, and those are political choices. And then what do you do when the computer program comes up with ten possible redistrictings that all meet the politically agreed-upon criteria? Start tossing a coin?

    Though not perfect, that might actually be better than the political gerrymandering that we have now(?)

    • #840
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.