And to clarify, this does not need to go back to the house because the house had already technically passed a bill that approved the funding. As I understand it, it was just later intended to be merge into the main CR bill.
After it was cut from the CR, the Dem senators were then able to save the funding by just approving an earlier standalone bill which had already passed the house
President-elect Musk it is then
The Democratic party actually seems to be getting that memo
The “President Musk” messaging is by design, at least partially. This week, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter and another person briefed on it, at senior levels of different Democratic congressional offices, and also within the Democratic National Committee, discussions have been had about having party leaders and elected officials actively portray Musk as effectively Trump’s boss, and to do so during television appearances that the president-elect is likely to see. The idea is that it’s a cost-free opportunity to potentially drive a petty wedge between the notably mercurial and ego-obsessed Trump and his similarly emotive pal Musk, and to sow some chaos in the upper ranks of the Republican Party.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/president-musk-dems-troll-trump-elon-1235211922/
"climate-smart beef" is pure greenwashing
Many argue that this overlooks the large variation in the footprints of foods across the world. Using global averages might give us a misleading picture for some parts of the world or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases
There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef
[...]
We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?
The answer is, depending on the land, and on the kind of grazing, it might sequester even more carbon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/10/03/beef-soil-carbon-sequestration/
Trump publicly backed this new bill, and 38 of them voted publicly against it. It makes Trump look weak and Trump hates looking weak. He wouldn't have backed the bill if he thought it was going to get shot down like that
I mean Matt Gatez already dropped out because he couldn't get the senate votes. You won't win every fight but that doesn't mean you can't win some important ones
For instance, the ACA survived narrowly, but it survived after people fought its repeal in the first term. It died in the senate narrowly. They had a much larger house majority (+26 more seats) then and it still barely passed the house 217-215
You only need 3 "moderate" republicans to vote against it. Or 3 MAGA republicans to vote against it because of petty reasons (maybe they're mad at the bill's author). Or just a few absences - there's republicans with attendance issues
Good reminder that there are fights to be had for his agenda and they are not forgone conclusions. They will have just a 3 seat majority in the house - and a 1 seat majority for a couple months with their planned vacancies. If they can lose 38 votes on their own funding bill, they can lose 3 on others
Already failed, 174-235, and Mike Johnson voted against it too
By convention, not by law
The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
When debt isn't paid off for long enough / they think it'll be too much work to collect, it's often sold by those organizations to private debt collectors. Here instead of collecting the debt, they just buy the debt then agree to forgive it
I get the sentiment, but medical debt forgiveness this way is nothing new. It's not helpful to lambast every single good story with dooming. Constant despair isn't helping us move the needle and fight back. Point out the fights where they, otherwise we're just making people too despaired to fight at all
The non-profit they partnered with has been doing work forgiving debt since 2014. And there's been high profile cases of people doing this too. In 2016, John Oliver forgave $15 million worth of medical debt for ~9 thousand people
Other local governments have done the same thing with the same non-profit:
In January this year, New York City said they were going to do the same for around 2 billion worth of medical debt for 500 thousand people over 3 years (paying around $18 million to buy that debt)
In 2023, Oakland County Michigan forgave around $200 million (paying around $2 million for the debt)
And so on
Also worth noting that senate dems were able to do some maneuvering to resecure most of that pediatric cancer funding that president-elect Musk and house republicans cut of their CR bill
The house had already technically passed an earlier bill that approved similar funding (intended to be merge into the main CR), so the senate dems just went back to that earlier bill and voted on it and got that passed