Congressman uses porn motion to defeat science bill - but there's a problem

[Dorian Gray]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/17/texas-congressman-uses-porn-to-kill-science-funding/

To sum up: He put a motion to punish government employees who use government computers to view porn while at work... and according to the article, the Dems' only two choices were to vote against science, or defeat the motion to punish work porn viewers.

Whaa??? I'm sorry, but at least two other options present themselves, one of which is the ultra-obvious vote for the bill with the motion in it. (The other is put in their own countermotion.) I mean, as one comment below the article says:

"Presented with a bill that would fund science AND punish people who surf porn at work, the Dems elected to let it fail. Why? Don’t they like science? Don’t they want to punish people who surf porn at work?"

So the question is... how did this strategy work? The article says if they passed it the bill would go back to committee and die, which isn't proven necessarily. But since the Dems killed the bill, and this is very important, Reps can still say Dems voted against punishing employees for looking at porn! In other words, this motion should have produced not the false dichotomy presented, but a... unicotomy (?) of voting for it.

[geni]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/17/texas-congressman-uses-porn-to-kill-science-funding/

To sum up: He put a motion to punish government employees who use government computers to view porn while at work... and according to the article, the Dems' only two choices were to vote against science, or defeat the motion to punish work porn viewers.

Whaa??? I'm sorry, but at least two other options present themselves, one of which is the ultra-obvious vote for the bill with the motion in it.


They did. Thats rather the problem. The motion was to send it back to committee.

[Newtons Bit]

Here's an idea:

Support the motion. Why not? The Democrats already have a habit of doing this exact thing, such as putting non-healthcare related tax documentation into the healthcare bill.

What's the problem?

[KoihimeNakamura]

They -did- it got sent back to committee because of it.

[Newtons Bit]

They -did- it got sent back to committee because of it.

Exactly. What's the problem?

[theprestige]

What's the problem with looking at porn at work?

[mortimer]

The problem is a Republican did it. Democrats never do such things.

[Dorian Gray]

Okay, wait. I must have read it wrong, because I thought the Dems just voted against the bill. I didn't realize that they chose my "third" option, which is now obviously a second option.

[Alferd_Packer]

they are getting funding to scientificly surf pron?

[Dave Rogers]

Having followed the links three levels down, it appears that the motion included other amendments to the bill that the Democrats strongly objected to, but they felt they couldn't vote against the motion because it would look like they were supporting porn at work. Apparently there isn't a mechanism for accepting the part of the motion that witholds pay from guilty employees while at the same time rejecting the part that freezes science funding more or less indefinitely.

Dave

[Dorian Gray]

That's how politicians get ammunition. They can get you for voting to protect work porn, or for voting against science.

[Newtons Bit]

Having followed the links three levels down, it appears that the motion included other amendments to the bill that the Democrats strongly objected to, but they felt they couldn't vote against the motion because it would look like they were supporting porn at work. Apparently there isn't a mechanism for accepting the part of the motion that witholds pay from guilty employees while at the same time rejecting the part that freezes science funding more or less indefinitely.

Dave

Here's the text of what it did: (http://gop.science.house.gov/Pressroom/Item.aspx?ID=243)

The successful Republican MTR addressed many of these outstanding concerns. Specifically, the MTR calls for:
· Eliminating funding authorizations beyond 2013, saving $38.2 billion;
· Striking the new programs in the bill, saving $1.3 billion;
· Freezing funding for all existing programs at current levels for 2011-2013 unless there is no deficit, saving $8 billion;
· Providing special consideration to schools that make STEM programs available to disabled veterans and to schools chartered to serve disabled students;
· Prohibiting any Federal employee who has been disciplined for downloading, viewing, or exchanging pornographic material from receiving a salary on the taxpayer dollar; and
· Ensuring that institutions receiving Federal funding allow military recruiters on their campuses.

The spending freezes are only set to last until 2013. This isn't an "indefinite" freeze as you claim. This is, quite frankly, the adults moving in and trying to limit non-essential spending while we're running over trillion dollar deficits.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Careful, your bias is showing.(also, for 5 years? you do realize this means that when they try to unfreeze funding they can go 'no money in the kitty for new plans', right?)

[Dave Rogers]

The spending freezes are only set to last until 2013. This isn't an "indefinite" freeze as you claim.

Maybe an overstatement, but the spending freezes are set to last at least as long as any existing funding authorisations, which isn't far off 'indefinite'.

This is, quite frankly, the adults moving in and trying to limit non-essential spending while we're running over trillion dollar deficits.

It looks to me more like it's the minority party moving in and trying to overturn the majority party's decision on what constitutes non-essential spending by tying it to an unrelated issue that nobody would oppose. If the pornography clause had been raised separately, I suspect it would have had a better chance of being passed on its own. By tying it to an attempt to overrule the Democrats' funding plans, the Republicans may have just made sure it dies with the whole bill.

Incidentally, is there any more detail on how the elimination of funding authorisations beyond 2013 'saves' $38.2B? It sounds to me like the Republicans are claiming deferred authorisation as an absolute saving, which is more than a little misleading; presumably there will be at least some science funding after 2013.

Dave

[daenku32]

Here's the text of what it did: (http://gop.science.house.gov/Pressroom/Item.aspx?ID=243)



The spending freezes are only set to last until 2013. This isn't an "indefinite" freeze as you claim. This is, quite frankly, the adults moving in and trying to limit non-essential spending while we're running over trillion dollar deficits.

How do military recruiters have anything to do with deficits?

[ponderingturtle]

Having followed the links three levels down, it appears that the motion included other amendments to the bill that the Democrats strongly objected to, but they felt they couldn't vote against the motion because it would look like they were supporting porn at work. Apparently there isn't a mechanism for accepting the part of the motion that witholds pay from guilty employees while at the same time rejecting the part that freezes science funding more or less indefinitely.

Dave

Why on earth does the federal government need to get involved in federal laws about viewing porn at work? It makes it seem like it would have been fine if they were say playing WoW at work instead of trolling for porn.

[Newtons Bit]

How do military recruiters have anything to do with deficits?

How does including tax paper work have anything to do with healthcare reform? :eek:

[Newtons Bit]

Maybe an overstatement, but the spending freezes are set to last at least as long as any existing funding authorisations, which isn't far off 'indefinite'.

It may just be me, but I don't define "3 years" as "indefinite".

It looks to me more like it's the minority party moving in and trying to overturn the majority party's decision on what constitutes non-essential spending by tying it to an unrelated issue that nobody would oppose. If the pornography clause had been raised separately, I suspect it would have had a better chance of being passed on its own. By tying it to an attempt to overrule the Democrats' funding plans, the Republicans may have just made sure it dies with the whole bill.

121 Democrats (almost half) voted for the motion. Nancy Pelosi then pulled the bill before the final vote. It would be pretty easy to argue that she is the one that is overruling the majority.

Furthermore, the minority has the right (nay the responsibility!) to have their voice heard and add motions to bills. The USA legislative isn't a "one-side take all" system. If the Democrats don't like it, then they need to grow a pair and vote those motions down. They could have gotten together and created their own motion to ban paying federal dollars to those who browse porn at work. That would have made any argument of "they support porn at work! zomg!" a complete fabrication. But now they get to claim that those evil Republicans hate science and used dirty parliamentary tricks to kill the whole bill. And their party base, who the Democrats are trying to energize before an election, just eat this crap up as evidenced by this forum thread and the highly partisan blogs linked in the OP.

In reality, the Republicans just want a three year freeze on unnecessary spending while there's an obscene level of deficit spending going on.


Incidentally, is there any more detail on how the elimination of funding authorisations beyond 2013 'saves' $38.2B? It sounds to me like the Republicans are claiming deferred authorisation as an absolute saving, which is more than a little misleading; presumably there will be at least some science funding after 2013.

Dave

I dunno. I think that's that pretty standard political speech. Much in the same way that one side accuses the other of "cutting" a program when they authorize a spending increase that's lower than previously planned.

[Newtons Bit]

Why on earth does the federal government need to get involved in federal laws about viewing porn at work? It makes it seem like it would have been fine if they were say playing WoW at work instead of trolling for porn.

I think it's mostly in response to the reports of the SEC browsing porn while the financial sector went to hell.

Had they been playing WoW, I imagine their would be a ban of MMORPG's while at work. Well, there would be, if members of congress could figure out what computers and gaming even are.

[BobTheDonkey]

How does including tax paper work have anything to do with healthcare reform? :eek:

You mean, the part of the bill that helps to pay for the rest of the bill? That part?


;)