Department of Housing and Urban Development Reduction Bill

[CheeseWhiz]

I read a little about this Department, and I don't see any reason we need to keep it.  Anybody got a reason besides that we should be looking out for the common man or the like?  No offense to those that do believe that, I’m just looking for a reason besides that one.

[CheeseWhiz]

Here's one: If you like having angry homeless people living on your front lawn, abolish the DHUD.

You know, I really do respect your opinion, but that’s exactly what I was trying to avoid.  I’m asking if there’s anything we, as in the Government, need from this Department.  I will consider the other concerns later, but I’d like that question answered first.

[CheeseWhiz]

Thank you, Ernest and Emsworth, that's what I was talking about.  You see, John, Jake and Boss?  They made me change my mind on this bill, something your ranting would never do.  There's much better ways to convince people of your point.

If the goal is the elimination of public housing assistance, eliminating the Office of Public and Indian Housing would do the trick without disturbing the rest of the department's functions.

That would be good   So, how about this amendment:

All mention of "Department of Housing and Urban Development" shall be stricken and replaced with "Office of Public and Indian Housing"

Any thoughts, ideas or suggestions are welcome

[CheeseWhiz]

I support Jake's amendment do this bill.

And what about my amendment?  Do you think we should keep the OPIH, or have you not seen it yet?

Also, this question is for anyone, which amendment would save us more money?  I'm just wondering.

[CheeseWhiz]

I support Jake's amendment do this bill.

And what about my amendment?  Do you think we should keep the OPIH, or have you not seen it yet?

For some reason I missed your amendment, we could do both now you know as well, put a 2 in front of it and write it out so we could do both.

If Jake doesn't have a problem with it, we could join forces and propose this:

The entire bill shall be stricken and replaced with:

The Reduction of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act

1. The funding under Personell and Administration for the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall be cut by 10%.
2. The Office of Public and Indian Housing is hereby eliminated.
3. Any laws relating to the Office of Public and Indian Housing are repealed.

If he doesn't support my amendment, then I will wait and see if his amendment passes first, and then either propose the amendment I posted before, (if it fails,) or this: (if it passes)

The following shall be added to the Bill:

2. The Office of Public and Indian Housing is hereby eliminated.
3. Any laws relating to the Office of Public and Indian Housing are repealed.

So, there, whatever happens, you will know what I want to propose

[CheeseWhiz]

This bill is giving me a headache.  Also, someone needs to take over as sponsor for the bill as DanielX has resigned.

I will

BTW, I think the Office of Public and Indian Housing has already been ruled unconstitutional by Bono v. Atlasia II.  All of the ethnicity-based public services were ruled unconstitutional then, IIRC.

Go Bono!

[CheeseWhiz]

(BS Proposal)

No, your amendment is abhorrent.

Actually, Ebowed thinks we abolished the Office of Public and Indian Housing

[CheeseWhiz]

I have one problem with the CheeseWhiz bill. It repeals all bills that even mention the Office of Public and Indian Housing which could include several bills that have very little to do with the agency but are nontheless mention the department within their text. I much better means of doing something like this is to strike the the phrase Office of Public and Indian Housing from all bills and to repeal sections of bills that pertain to the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

Personally I think we should do this. If the court has already ruled that this office is unconstitutional, and I do believe that was a unanimous ruling, then it is only logical that we do away with the infrastructure of the unconstitutional department.

Good point, I'll change it after we vote on Jake's amendment so that I can write it for whatever the current bill is.

[CheeseWhiz]

Yea.

[CheeseWhiz]

Wait, if I can, I'd like to change this amendment because of the concerns raised by Senator Wixted:

The following shall be added to the Bill:

2. The Office of Public and Indian Housing is hereby eliminated.
3. The words "Office of Public and Indian Housing" shall be striken from all bills.
4. Any section of any bill that pertains to the Office of Public and Indian Housing shall be repealed.

[CheeseWhiz]

Yea, if we're voting on my amended version.  Abstain if we're voting on the original version.

[CheeseWhiz]

Aye.

[CheeseWhiz]

Why are people voting nay on this one?  It's just a clarification of a previous amendment to make it not have unfortunate consequences.

^^^^^

My last amendment was worded kind of badly, as Colin pointed out.  Do you really wish for every bill that just mentions the Office of Public and Indian Housing to be repealed?

[CheeseWhiz]

CheeseWhiz, if this amendment fails I'll be voting against this.   But then re-introduce it with that amendment and I'll vote for it.

I don't blame you, I'll even be abstaining if that happens   Anyway, thanks for proposing it if it doesn't pass, hopefully it won't come to that, but thanks

[CheeseWhiz]

Thank you very much Peter, your amendment is an improvement over my original wording

[CheeseWhiz]

Yea

[CheeseWhiz]

Aye

[CheeseWhiz]

Ebowed, how come you vetoed the bill?  Just wondered if there was anything specific I could fix.

[CheeseWhiz]

Ebowed, as Ernest and Bono have already said, that program has been ruled unconstitutional, and, I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean we're actually paying people to do nothing?  If that is the case, then this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be cut first.

[CheeseWhiz]

A ray of sanity comes out of this administration.  Thank you, Ebowed.

I know you probably want to keep the Office of Public and Indian Housing and all, but I believe Ernest was saying that we really didn't have a program to keep after Bono vs. Atlasia II.  Because of the courts rulings, the program can’t do anything, so we are paying them not to do absolutely anything.

Yes, I would like to have an veto override vote.

[CheeseWhiz]

Aye

So go ahead and pursue your veto override, if you really want, but you may as well keep in mind that we already approved a cut/abolition of this Office when we passed the last Budget.

So, wait, are you saying that the programs gonna get cut soon whatever happens to this bill?

[CheeseWhiz]

The office has already been cut,

Okay, why didn't you tell us this before we passed the bill?  I thought it's operations had been cut, but I knew nothing about the actual program being cut.

and this bill is horribly written

Please explain.

and was passed only so that a cut could be rushed through.

I don't think so.  All the Senators discussed it for about 6 pages and most could agree that this could be cut.  If we can agree that something can or, better yet, needs to be cut, we should jump at the opportunity.

[CheeseWhiz]

The office has already been cut,

Okay, why didn't you tell us this before we passed the bill?  I thought it's operations had been cut, but I knew nothing about the actual program being cut.

I didn't realize that until after the bill had been passed.

Still, are you sure?  You brought up that you thought it had been cut before, but Ernest said that it hadn't been cut, just declared unconstitutional.  Could you show me where you got that info?  Thanks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please explain.[/quote]

It tries to cut/abolish two things at the same time in an unorganized manner solely for the sake of getting a cut passed.  It looks like it was written on the back of an envelope; I don't really think it can be saved at all.  The bill was never a good idea to begin with.[/quote]

Okay, instead of insulting the writting could you please point out the actual flaws with the bill?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think so.  All the Senators discussed it for about 6 pages and most could agree that this could be cut.  If we can agree that something can or, better yet, needs to be cut, we should jump at the opportunity.
[/quote]

The only reason that discussion occured was because someone introduced a bill that would abolish the entire Department in the first place.  So, the Senate felt the need to at least cut something because the original bill was too extreme.  As I said, I feel that this was done for the wrong reasons.
[/quote]

So, if that sole purpose of the bill had always been to cut the Office of Public and Indian Housing would you have not vetoed it?  I really can't see why it matters where the idea came from, just what the bill is actually doing.  I'm just wondering what the problem was with what the bill would actually accomplish.  Do you have a problem with Jake's 10% cut, my abolishment of the OPIH, or both?