Republicans block small business lending bill

jackspratt wrote:A question for the Americans on the forum.

What chance that the US Congress would adopt the seemingly eminently sensible rule in Oz (and I assume the UK) that a bill before the parliament can only deal with one subject?

I am mystified by all the earmarks and other totally unrelated nonsense that attempts to get added into US bills. (So am I and I think a lot of Americans; but little chance of change; pity)

For example, from the above link from LDB:

GOP amendments included measures to beef up border security, impose a government spending cap and lower the estate tax, which is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million.

One Republican amendment would repeal a new tax reporting requirement for businesses that was included in the massive health care overhaul enacted last spring.

Democrats, meanwhile, have added about $1.5 billion in disaster relief for farmers who lost crops in 2009, a measure sponsored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

Democrats also wanted to add an amendment to settle long-running class-action lawsuits brought by black farmers and American Indians.

WTF have these got to do with "creat(ing) a $30 billion government fund to help community banks increase lending to small businesses, combining it with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses"?

JimboPSM wrote:Putting on my cynical hat - I would interpret it as being part of the mechanics of getting suitable amounts of “pork” out to all of those (and their backers) as a reward for voting for a bill

jackspratt wrote:Well in this case stan, it is the ultra-conservatives (republicans in the senate) who have done the rejecting.

jackspratt wrote:Possibly, but as the Dems no longer have a filibuster-proof majority (60), could be just the cons doing the dirty work.

jackspratt wrote:Thanks for the update (o)bama.

Yes, you are right - hopefully the Dems will pick up 2 or three more senate seats in November.