Anyone else get an email response from the senator?
I'll never contact murray or cantwell about anything again. They will vote with the tree huggers regardless.
Those two waste of votes already have all the votes, they do what they want. And that is tree hugging .I'll never contact murray or cantwell about anything again. They will vote with the tree huggers regardless.
If you don't keep the pressure up, they will do what ever they want to. Giving up is not the answer.
Those two waste of votes already have all the votes, they do what they want. And that is tree hugging .I'll never contact murray or cantwell about anything again. They will vote with the tree huggers regardless.
If you don't keep the pressure up, they will do what ever they want to. Giving up is not the answer.
The procedural vote went down party lines almost one for one. The procedure vote was not on the bill itself, but rather whether budgetary disciplines should be ignored. The bill as written ignores the Budget Control act.
It's not over.
The motion vote was 47 Democrats and 1 Republican YEA, and 43 Republicans 1 Democrat NAY (6 Not Present.)The procedural vote went down party lines almost one for one. The procedure vote was not on the bill itself, but rather whether budgetary disciplines should be ignored. The bill as written ignores the Budget Control act.
It's not over.
I don't believe this is true. Both Dem and Reps voted on both sides of this bill. It fell because it didn't include its own funding, like an added .5% to PR excise, for example. I believe you're correct about it not being over, Bob. I think once sportsmen recognize that they have the support if they provide the funding, the bill will pass and be signed into law.
The failure of the sponsors and writers of this bill to address the funding issue is glaring, indeed. Especially considering that a majority of the backers, although not an astounding majority, are conservatives. We can not be conservative only on those issues that we choose. We must be conservative across the board and reduce the size of government or else find a way to pay. I think this is a victory for the ethics of conservatism and maybe a temporary, minor setback for sportsmen as a whole.
It was a procedural vote, not a vote on the bill itself. I hope and expect the bill will ultimately be enacted.
I received no replies from Cantwell or Murray (again I didn`t request one either).
did this fail as posted on a diff thread?
ya murray and cantwell are a waste of time. Only Cantwell actually wrote me back after my contact. From some of her words it sounds like she may have voted no or abstained.
I am fed up with government expanding spending and control, so I have a very hard time with this bill when I hear it’s going to cost money and there is talk about a new commission. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the bill, I have been too busy to take the time to read this bill. If any of you have read it maybe you can help me understand why I should support more spending and control?
- Why is there a $140 million price tag for this bill?
- Where is the $145 million in funding coming from?
- What is the $140 Million being used for?
- Who is paying the $145 Million and how?
- What new government commissions is being created?
- What will the new government commission be regulating?
Can anyone please explain why I should bite the carrot being dangled in my face and support this bill, thanks in advance for any help in understanding this bill better?
Rejecting "government" just because it's government is silly. This does not expand government, it simply creates some really good opportunity for the sportsmen of this country.
I would suggest that rejecting "government" just because it's government is "prudent thinking". Anyone with an inkling of finanacial wisdom can see the mess that "government" has gotten this country into. ;)
I received no replies from Cantwell or Murray (again I didn`t request one either).
I can speculate. ;)
Murray urges passage of Sportsmen’s Bill, Calls on Republicans to Follow Rhetoric with Real Proposals
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Wednesday, November 28th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray delivered a speech on the Senate floor to call on her colleagues to pass Senate Bill 3525, the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012. The bill would enact a series of measures designed to ease restrictions on hunters and sportspeople throughout the United States.
“I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues have chosen to ignore an overwhelming number of Americans who support the reasonable, common sense proposals in this bill. Because Democrats are strongly in favor of passage, we will continue to fight for the hard working gun owners, hunters, and sportspeople in our country, and ask the Republicans to do the same. Unfortunately, Republicans have once again chosen to pander to the wealthiest Americans and right wing supporters including Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, George Bush, and Sarah Palin in an effort to divide our country.”
JLS, I asked some rather important questions regarding this bill and had hoped for some simple answers. A couple of your replies were probably not the most productive replies to build my support for the bill. :twocents:
jshunt maybe you can help, I cannot remember once that Cantwell & Murray have agreed with or supported any request that I have sent them asking for their support of any hunting or firearms issue. The fact they are reportedly supporting this bill raises red flags. Why are they supporting this bill and why are republicans who normally support hunting and firearms not actively supporting this bill? I think this is a fair question to ask.
I quickly read through the bill online and on the surface there are a number of positives, I have said I might support this bill, but I would also like to know how much they plan to charge for duckstamps to fund this bill and the new Fish Habitat Board? Thanks for any info you can provide.
JLS, I asked some rather important questions regarding this bill and had hoped for some simple answers. A couple of your replies were probably not the most productive replies to build my support for the bill. :twocents:
jshunt maybe you can help, I cannot remember once that Cantwell & Murray have agreed with or supported any request that I have sent them asking for their support of any hunting or firearms issue. The fact they are reportedly supporting this bill raises red flags. Why are they supporting this bill and why are republicans who normally support hunting and firearms not actively supporting this bill? I think this is a fair question to ask.
I quickly read through the bill online and on the surface there are a number of positives, I have said I might support this bill, but I would also like to know how much they plan to charge for duckstamps to fund this bill and the new Fish Habitat Board? Thanks for any info you can provide.
Why? Because I pointed out an anti-government bias in your logic that we shouldn't spend money to make money, while at the same time reaping benefits as sportsment?
Look at the groups that have worked to lobby for and support this bill. It is an ecclectc mix to say the least. John Tester has a strong record of supporting hunters and fishermen. I for one do not believe for a second that he would sell us a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I believe the increase on the duck stamp is ten bucks.
Before the election, this bill received overwhelming support across the Senate. It is partly line politics pure and simple.
JLS, I asked some rather important questions regarding this bill and had hoped for some simple answers. A couple of your replies were probably not the most productive replies to build my support for the bill. :twocents:
jshunt maybe you can help, I cannot remember once that Cantwell & Murray have agreed with or supported any request that I have sent them asking for their support of any hunting or firearms issue. The fact they are reportedly supporting this bill raises red flags. Why are they supporting this bill and why are republicans who normally support hunting and firearms not actively supporting this bill? I think this is a fair question to ask.
I quickly read through the bill online and on the surface there are a number of positives, I have said I might support this bill, but I would also like to know how much they plan to charge for duckstamps to fund this bill and the new Fish Habitat Board? Thanks for any info you can provide.
JLS, I asked some rather important questions regarding this bill and had hoped for some simple answers. A couple of your replies were probably not the most productive replies to build my support for the bill. :twocents:
jshunt maybe you can help, I cannot remember once that Cantwell & Murray have agreed with or supported any request that I have sent them asking for their support of any hunting or firearms issue. The fact they are reportedly supporting this bill raises red flags. Why are they supporting this bill and why are republicans who normally support hunting and firearms not actively supporting this bill? I think this is a fair question to ask.
I quickly read through the bill online and on the surface there are a number of positives, I have said I might support this bill, but I would also like to know how much they plan to charge for duckstamps to fund this bill and the new Fish Habitat Board? Thanks for any info you can provide.