Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x
I like talking about potential vehicles and the political environment a lot more than these silly abstract arguments about what % we had to pass 2 years ago.
There is plenty of constructive things we can be talking about instead of acting like 9 year olds imo.
So...what are the big bills moving forward this holiday season? Are there things I should be communicating to my lawmakers concerning the lame duck specifically?
It is too early to be looking to specific bills for potential attachment. The most likely vehicle is one associated with either the tax cuts or the "automatic" spending reductions from the last debt-ceiling deal. But the specific form of that vehicle is still a long way from taking shape.
A lot will depend on the elections, but I believe that whatever the election outcome there will be some clear issues that will generate bi-partisan support (extending middle class tax cuts maybe, or perhaps restoration of certain defense spending). Once a deal is made on this larger issue, then the work of attaching our little bill begins.
The key, I think, is to have a bill with sufficient bi-partisan support that the minor controversy of online poker/gambling will not be able to jeopardize overall support.
I also think the current "grand compromise" is not likely to generate that much principled opposition and that also is a key to success. The whole point of the work Reid and Kyl have done over the last year is to ensure that all the special interests get something and will support the compromise. That means the only opposition left should be the handful of legislators who morally oppose any gaming and can't stomach a poker exception, or the few who think the Feds should stay out of what is, to them, a state issue.
If the number of principled opponents is not enough to jeopardize passage of the underlying bill (and remember, most Congress critters care very little about the issue and will be happy to follow the lead of Reid or Kyl) then the attachment should succeed and the legitimization of some form of interstate online poker should follow.
There are plenty of "ifs" in the above scenario, but none of the "ifs" are that unlikely to break our way, IMHO, except the first one - there has to be a bill that has such a good level of bi-partisan support that the number of Reps who would vigorously oppose a Reid/Kyl the gaming attachment will not make a real difference to the underlying bill's passage.
We shall see ....
Skallagrim