The rights of all members to fully function as legislators had been taken away by Speaker Pelosi, who legislated in small, secret groups. She knew knowledge was “power.” She used her power to manipulate the legislative process by bringing multi-thousand-page bills to the floor without giving members the ability to read the proposed law or the right to offer amendments. Pelosi treated backbenchers as lemons.

Now, as the hard work of legislating begins, Conservatives should never forget, “No plan ever survives contact with the enemy.” This point is critical since real conservatives have fought excessive spending and increasing national debt for decades, but their efforts have many times been thwarted by Republicans who spend just as much, or more, than Democrats. Based on fiscal year spending, Republicans are bigger spenders than Democrats.

The necessity of member participation. Since every member of Congress is elected by a congressional district of similar size, the average number being 761,169 people, each member should have similar rights to represent the legislative needs of their districts in Congress. Those rights include the right to know what they are voting on and to offer amendments to change bad legislation.

Through a combination of Rules changes and commitments from the Speaker, members will have 72 hours to read legislation before they must vote on it. And, if the legislation is only on one subject, it will be more understandable to them and the American people. All legislators will have the right to offer amendments to cut spending as opposed to being forced to endlessly increase it.  Additionally, special interest riders will need a two-thirds vote for approval. There were 7,200 legislative riders in the $1.7 trillion Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Putting conservatives on the Rules Committee makes them part of the legislative process.  The #Freedom 20 secured the Speaker’s commitment to appoint three real conservatives to the House Rules Committee. If honored, it will give conservatives real input on what is debated on the floor of the House. If the Speaker does not keep his promises, any member can move to remove him.

 Every member of the House is now responsible for addressing the national debt. Now the #Freedom 20 and every member of Congress can run the government for the people, not the special interests. That will be an extremely difficult task. Jimmy Carter left office in 1980 with a $997 billion national debt. Today after four Republican and three Democrat presidents, the national debt is $31 trillion. As the great philosopher Pogo (a comic strip character) stated, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

Congress must recognize it created this spending and debt problem. Congress is responsible for addressing it. That said, the #Freedom 20 needs to convince many more members of the House and likely most of the Senate to attend “Spenders Anonymous.” Already, Republicans are on cable tv objecting to cuts in the military. If one department can be left off the table, all departments will be left off the table.

Since a point of order is merely the opening act, conservatives need to do the hard work of proving to spenders the need for budget cuts and debt reductions. Soon the #Freedom 20 will find that a “Point of Order” is great theater but is easily dismissed by a majority of spenders. For over two decades, the Congressional Budget Office identified hundreds of billions of dollars in congressional funding for thousands of expired authorizations stemming from hundreds of expired laws. All points of order were overruled.

In its last report, the CBO identified $461 billion in congressional funding for 1,118 expired authorizations stemming from 442 expired laws. House Rule XVI already prohibits such appropriations; however, the House merely voted to wave the rule and fund the expired programs.

Now however, with the empowerment of all members and a rule that requires all committees to review expired programs, each Republican member of the House should agree to review five expired laws to determine whether they should be reauthorized, amended, or let lapse and report their recommendations to the committee chair. Such a review would analyze the entire list of 1118 expired laws that are being funded. It is a chance to immediately save almost one-half trillion dollars.

# Freedom 20 also secured the right to offer a “Balance Budget Amendment” and a Constitutional proposal to impose term limits on members of Congress. These are two significant issues that most members of Congress would like to ignore. Most members of Congress want their privileged positions for life. Without accountability, however, members of Congress are free to do as they choose and still be reelected. Over 90% of incumbents are reelected, a percentage similar to the reelection rate for the Russian Duma.

There is some camouflage in the new rules. The select committees do not have subpoena power, which must be approved by the chairman of the relevant standing committee. The select committees, however, can waive the 5-minute rule on questioning witnesses, a huge benefit in seeking the truth. They can also make legislative recommendations.  Unfortunately, these select committees will have less investigative power than the Democrats’ infamous “January 6^th” select committee.

 The real dark and cold reality facing the #Freedom 20 is the Senate. The Senate cares little about members of the “lower” House. The Constitution created the Senate to represent states, not people. Notwithstanding the XVII Amendment, Senators view themselves as closer to being a presidential deity than commoners in Congress. A Senator’s function, even Republican Senators,  seems to be distributing taxpayer money to special interests. Eighteen Senators supported the Democrats’ passage of the most recent 4000-page, $1.7 trillion Omnibus Appropriations Act.

The House needs to find leverage that makes the Senate take it seriously. This standoff brings us to the very brutal part of politics. In the final analysis, the #Freedom 20, or the House in general, has only two ways to leverage its power. The House can refuse to increase the debt limit unless it receives concessions. This tactic forces the Senate to confront the debt reality, but it puts every member of the #Freedom 20 at risk of causing an economic calamity. Worse still, Democrats and many Republican Senators will run to the cameras to call the House members crazy, insurrectionists or anarchists.

The second option is simply to refuse to appropriate money for items of concern to the Senate or the administration until debt concessions are made. The is no provision of the Constitution or any law that requires any member of the House to appropriate money. This approach will require waiting for the next round of appropriations.  A possible first step would be to refuse to appropriate money to fund a federal agency important to the big spenders. My nomination would be the Department of Education. It is the most important agency t Democrats and is owned by their biggest donors, teachers’ unions. Democrats will make concessions to save that Department for the unions.  House Republicans should find an agreement to defund an agency they never wanted.

As the 118^th Congress unfolds, the American public will discover if the #Freedom 20 and Republican House have crossed the Rubicon or whether they are merely taking a siesta on its banks.

The post #Freedom20 Rule Changes Make All in Congress Equal appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Is this the proper way to address the issue of “draining the swamp” that is our nation’s capital, or could this be an abdication of our responsibility as citizens of a Constitutional Republic?

In an op-ed penned for The Washington Post in 2016, Senator Cruz stated that according to a Rassmussen report conducted in October of that year, 74% of people supported a constitutional amendment that would place term limits for senators and members of Congress.

This episode may not make me popular with many listeners, but I promised that I’d always be open and honest with my audience about what it is that I believe. It is my firm conviction that we must choose leaders from our own communities that best represent our interests. While I am convinced Ted’s heart is in the right place on this issue, his proposed solution doesn’t strike the problem at is root.

I would like to publicly extend an invitation to Senator Ted Cruz to come on my show and state his case for his position on the subject of amending the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of terms a senator or congressman may serve. The door is always open to you, Ted, as I feel discussing this topic in podcast format would benefit the American people.

Listen here and subscribe to Revolution’s Revival with Caleb Shumate on Podbean to keep up with all the latest episodes of the show.

You can also find episodes on my YouTube channel.

The post Term Limits for Senators and Congressmen: A Step to Preserve Liberty appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post The Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus Is Ready To Take Charge, Meet Biden’s Call For Unity appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, is the “face of privileged liberal hypocrisy,” for ordering 40 million Californians to wear masks and eat outside, while he celebrated a lobbyist birthday; inside and without a mask. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives gets a private hairdo when all salons were ordered closed and the hairdo was illegal. Or Mayor Hancock of Denver, ordering city residents to stay home alone and not to travel for Thanksgiving, while he flew to Mississippi to celebrate with his family.

My favorite example is when Michigan’s Governor Whitmer ordered residents not to travel to Michigan lakes for Memorial Day while her husband was trying to get the docking company to put his boat in the water. When the incident became public, the Governor stated he was joking.

These slights to us common people by the “elites” are not really the end of the world. They are just more noticeable since they impact our daily lives whereas the elites transferring millions or billions in public funds to friends, lobbyists, bankers, foreign dictators, while disgusting, are so far out of our normal experience, they are just words in a newspaper.

Americans hate political hypocrisy! Unfortunately, it continues since we do not know how to stop it. It’s time to bring these hypocrites before the sewer of injustice in this country.

Presented are 3 modest and workable proposals that politicians will easily find ways to ignore and 1 outrageous proposal that will stop hypocrite politicians in their tracks.

Type 1 Hypocrisy – Politicians impose a law on everyone but they do not follow it.

Modest Proposal 1 – subject all elected politicians to the same employee personal policy manuals as all other employees. Not a radical concept. When these elected officials violate state law, regulation, or policy, they would be administratively disciplined by the Human Resources department, e.g. reprimand, unpaid leave of absence, reduction in salary. Since politicians have all taken oaths to uphold the law but cannot be fired for violating their oaths (other than recall, election, or impeachment) there would be a minimum salary reduction of 2 months’ salary for the first offense, 3 months reduction for the second offense and so on.

Type 2 Hypocrisy – Politicians pass a law that imposes duties and restrictions on citizens but specifically exempt themselves from the law.  The U.S. Congress imposes laws on the entire nation and on the Executive branch but exempts itself from such laws.

Modest Proposal 2 – require that all laws passed by Congress apply to the institution of Congress and its members. If there is one way to ensure reasonable laws, it is for Congress having to comply with them. Enacting such a law should be simple – ask every candidate whether they would support such a law. Literally, every candidate will say “yes.” Citizens need to get the “yes” and then hold the candidate accountable if elected, to enact laws that apply to all people.

The National Archives compiled a list of laws that do not apply to Congress: Occupational Safety and Health law of 1970, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Independent Counsel, Limitations on Gifts, no-Official Activities as Agent or Attorney, Personal Gain, Honoraria and Outside Compensation, Labor and Employment Laws that have No Relevance to the Activities of Congress. Other laws are identified by Pro Publica.  

Type 3 Hypocrisy – Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the laws of the U.S., then violate the law when in office.

Modest Proposal 3 – have Congress actually enforce the rules of the House and Senate that have very stringent mechanisms for punishing members who violate the law. The U.S Constitution authorizes each House to determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior and expel members by a two-thirds vote.

The rules of each House are very comprehensive in dealing with disorderly conduct by members. Punishment varies based on the seriousness of the offense ranging from fines and monetary assessments, letters of reproval (gentle disapproval) censure, reprimand, and expulsion.

The difficulty is that the House, for example, rarely uses its disciplinary powers, no matter how serious the offense. Between 1832 and July 2016 only 23 members have been censured (6 since 1921); 10 reprimanded and five expelled. Some of the conduct that escaped sanction includes corruption in the House Post Office, sexting and sending pornographic pictures on the Internet of the congressman, and seeking sexual favors in public bathrooms.

From August 2016 to the present another 53 complaints, according to GovTrack were filed and processed in the House and Senate.

An outrageous proposal to reduce hypocrisy by government officials

The above reasonable proposals will likely fail since government officials will use their offices, friends, relationships, money, staff, and other officeholders to limit punishment for their hypocrisy. To be truly effective in addressing political hypocrites we need to think about what ordinary citizens can do to prevent such actions in the future.

The Outrageous Proposal – Place a “Standee,” (a life-size cardboard cutout of the politician) in the public square and place “throws,” (necklaces of plastic beads used at Marti Gras) around the neck of the standee. Each “throw” would have a “scarlet H” attached. Every citizen could add a unique throw.  Lines would long. National news would be generated. Politicians not wanting the honor of being a “standee” would think twice before being hypocrites.

All other outrageous ideas should be presented since serious, modest proposals rarely persuade elite public officials to do the right thing.

Originally published at https://www.reformthekakistocracy.com

The post Punishing Political Hypocrisy: An Outrageous Proposal appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Nancy Pelosi is the House Majority Leader who represents California’s 12th District in the United States House of Representatives. So the same rules don’t seem to apply to her.

Fox News obtained the security footage and released an exclusive article.

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited a San Francisco hair salon on Monday afternoon for a wash and blow-out, despite local ordinances keeping salons closed amid the coronavirus pandemic, Fox News had learned.

In security footage obtained by Fox News, and timestamped Monday at 3:08 p.m. Pacific Time, the California powerhouse is seen walking through eSalon in San Francisco with wet hair, and without a mask over her mouth or nose.”

Watch the security camera footage below:

Carla Marinucci, a blue checkmark journalist from Politico took to Twitter questioning if the use of security cameras in both businesses and homes is legal.

The two party consent law is mostly regarding phone calls where both parties need to know the phone call is being recorded, and to disallow third party wiretapping.

Marinucci seems to believe this might need to extend to your home security, and that a private property owner has no right to monitor their own property in order to respect an intruder’s privacy.

The post Politico Journo Asks If Security Cameras Are Legal After Pelosi Caught Violating Lockdown appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Pelosi’s coronavirus relief bill is a veritable pork barrel for programs that would force corporations receiving government aid to implement “diversity and inclusion” initiatives that have nothing to do with combating COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and preventing its spread.

In an age when the word “outrage” has lost its meaning through overuse, one is left speechless that the speaker of the House would hold the country’s physical and financial health hostage in an attempt to remake the corporate world along the lines of identity politics.

Pelosi’s bill uses the words diversity or diverse 63 times, the word inclusion 14 times and the word minority 109 times as it lays money aside for large and small pet projects based on national divisions that depend on race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, etc.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

This is not showing compassion for those in need; this is abusing the coronavirus emergency to reorder America.

Title V of Pelosi’s bill, “Investing in a Sustainable Recovery,” has sections on “Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity” and “Diverse Investment Advisers.”

The bill is meticulous in its attempt to coerce companies to count Americans along identity categories in every nook and cranny of corporate activity.

The legislation stipulates: “Any corporation that receives federal aid related to COVID-19 must maintain officials and budget dedicated to diversity and inclusion for no less than 5 years after disbursement of funds.”

The oversight panel set up to distribute the funds “shall collect diversity data from any corporation that receives Federal aid related to COVID-19 and issue a report that will be made publicly available no later than one year after the disbursement of funds.”

That report must include:

the gender, race and ethnic identity (and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group) as otherwise known or provided voluntarily, for the total number of employees (full and part-time) and the career level of employees (executive and managers versus employees in other roles). … The number and dollar value invested with minority- and women-owned suppliers (and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group) including professional services (legal and consulting) and asset managers, and deposits and other accounts with minority depository institutions, as compared to all vendors investments.

Pelosi’s legislation would require companies to supply a comparison of pay among sexes and racial and ethnic minorities. They would have to equally hand over to the government demographic data on their corporate boards, the “reporting structure of lead diversity officials,” and the size of the budget and staff of offices dedicated to “diversity and inclusion.”

Pelosi’s bill would order the Securities and Exchange Commission to set up a Diversity and Advisory Group composed of college professors, government bureaucrats, and members of the private sector to carry out a study that would propose strategies to “increase gender, racial and ethnic diversity” on corporate boards.

Even grantees that hire service personnel who assist elderly households “shall consider and hire, at all levels of employment, and to greatest extent possible, a diverse staff, including by race, ethnicity, gender and disability status.”

No stone is left unturned in Nancy Pelosi’s effort to use the greatest crisis this country has faced in years to stamp identity politics on all aspects of the economy.

What it all has to do with combating the coronavirus or getting our economy humming again is a mystery.

But as Emanuel, who would become chief of staff to President Barack Obama, made clear in 2008, the moments of greatest urgency and fear create opportunities to do things that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand–even if one must make one’s fellow citizens suffer a little longer.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told fellow lawmakers in a conference call last week, according to The Hill newspaper.

Indeed.

COMMENTARY BY

Republished with permission from The Daily Signal.

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Coronavirus Relief Bill: Pelosi’s Identity Politics Pork Barrel appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

We are facing the possibility of the next President being selected by the House of Representatives. This has happened twice before, in 1800 and 1824.

How might this happen?

Firs t: another rigged Democratic convention. The Sanders’ campaign and its supporters are still angry over losing the 2016 nomination to Hillary Clinton. In the fight for the 2016 nomination the Clinton campaign literally bought the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) by paying off the party’s large debt. This gave the Clinton campaign control of the staff and final decisions of the DNC, notwithstanding that the DNC was obligated to remain neutral in the primary. Should Sanders go into the 2020 convention with the largest number of delegates, and again be denied the nomination, a political civil war erupts in the Democratic party.

Second: if Sanders is denied the nomination a second time, he runs on the Green Party ticket or as an Independent.  Sanders, like President Trump, has aggressively loyal followers. To quote an opinion article in the New York Post, “Hell hath no fury like Bernie’s millennials if they are thwarted.”  Like President Trump, Sanders is taking on the establishment as a political outsider. With this loyalty from supporters that constitutes 30% plus of the Democratic base, decades of fighting the establishment, strong credentials with environmental groups, especially on climate change, and a having a great money raising machine, Bernie Sanders can quickly launch a viable third-party movement. This is all possible since the Green Party convention is July 9-12, 2020 while the Democratic Convention is July 13-16, 2020. Sanders will know of his chances for the nomination by then and could quickly switch parties.

Third: Sanders can win several states and secure electoral votes. Sanders won eight states in the 2016 primary that Democrats won in the general election. Of these states, Sanders won NH, VT, ME, RI and WA with over 60% of the vote. These states have 26 electoral votes. Winning a few of these states could, in a close election, deny the Democrats the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Fourth: California’s population loss could be the Republican’s albatross. California has lost over 691,000 people in 2018. Texas was the destination of choice by 86,164 people followed by Arizona 68,516, Washington, 55,467, Nevada, 50,707. Oregon, Colorado, Florida, New York, Virginia and Idaho were also recipients. These new residents bring their liberal beliefs with them. Arizona is the key state having 11 electoral votes. Trump won Arizona in 2016 by 91,000 votes while Krysten Sinema, a Democrat, won the Senate seat in 2018 by 56,000 votes. These new 68,516 transplants in Arizona could give the electoral college votes to a Democrat. Also Trump won four of the larger states by small margins, i.e. Michigan (0.3%), Wisconsin (1%), Pennsylvania (1.2%), Florida (1.2%). These margins are so small that they can be impacted by the placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot, i.e. being listed first is a 5% advantage.

Fifth: with, at least, 37 uncertain electoral votes, a third-party winning only a few of them, is eligible, to be selected president by the House of Representatives. If none of the candidates receive 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the next President. The House will choose from the top three candidates receiving electoral votes. In this case, each state delegation in the House of Representatives, has one vote. In the current Congress, 26 state delegations are controlled by Republicans, 23 by Democrats and one state delegation (Pennsylvania) is a 50-50 split. But the current Congress will not decide the matter. The newly elected members to the House of Representatives in November 2020 will make that decision when the 117th Congress starts in January 2021.

Sixth: the variables cannot be controlled.  With an almost even split between state delegations, the migrants from California and other blue states might make a big difference, depending on which congressional districts they move to. Moreover, the Constitution does not bind electors to vote in accordance with the winner of their state’s vote. This freedom is limited in 32 states however, in 18 states the elector is free to vote however, it desires. In several restriction states, there is no penalty for voting against the candidate their state, i.e. FL, OH, WI. Finally, the ballots cast to determine the position of each state’s delegation are secret ballots and none of the members of Congress have any obligation to vote party line.

If none of the candidates secure the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, it will be a very unpredictable process, especially if a third-party candidate receives electoral votes, making the candidate eligible for election by the House. The outcome will be determined by who moves to what congressional districts and which Republicans, Democrats or Independents, like or dislike, the President enough to vote for the candidate of another party.

Such a situation would be the epitome of intrigue!

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Could the House of Representatives Select the Next POTUS? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Margaret Olohanon

Only two Democratic congressmen voted “no” on a resolution formalizing an impeachment inquiry Thursday: New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson.

Congress voted Thursday to open an impeachment inquiry with a vote ending 232 in favor of the impeachment inquiry and 196 against. Not a single Republican voted yes.

Van Drew warned that impeachment will “further divide the country” in a statement he released following the vote, according to NorthJersey.com.

“However, now that the vote has taken place and we are moving forward I will be making a judgment call based on all the evidence presented by these investigations,” he said in the statement. “My hope is that we are still able to get some work done to help the American people like infrastructure, veteran’s benefits, environmental protections, immigration reform, reducing prescription drug cost, and strengthening Social Security.”

The New Jersey representative stole a GOP seat in 2018 and might face a tough re-election year, the publication reported. Voters in Van Drew’s district largely voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Peterson is one of only two Democrats remaining in the House who voted to authorize the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, according to Fox News. The Minnesota representative comes from Minnesota’s Congressional District 7, a district that largely voted for Trump in the 2016 election — and no other House Democrat comes from a district more supportive of Trump, the Duluth News Tribune reported.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Who Are The Two Democrats That Voted No On The Impeachment Inquiry? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Shelby Talcott

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to condemn President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American troops from Syria.

The White House announced Oct. 6 that Trump told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the U.S. would be clearing out of northern Syria. The news sparked bipartisan backlash because it allows Turkey to invade Syria and go after Kurdish fighters, who have worked with the U.S. to beat ISIS.

Republicans and Democrats alike approved a resolution opposing Trump’s apparent acceptance of Turkey invading and attacking the Kurds. The measure passed 354-60, the New York Times reported. A bipartisan group of congressional leaders was set to meet with Trump about the issue shortly after the resolution passed.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Ankara, Turkey Wednesday to discuss a cease-fire.

“The Vice President will voice the United States’ commitment to reach an immediate ceasefire and the conditions for a negotiated settlement” according to a press release from the Office of the Vice President.

Over 150 Kurdish soldiers have diet since Trump announced he would withdraw American troops and Turkey launched “Operation Peace Spring” Oct. 10, the country’s defense military announced. Turkey’s Defense Ministry said the number is higher, Fox News reported.

The resolution is mostly symbolic but notes that America’s withdrawal is “beneficial to adversaries of the United States government,” including Russia, Syria and Iran. It called for Erdogan to end military action in northern Syria, the NYT reported.

Trump has stayed strong behind his decision, noting Wednesday that Turkey invading Syria is “not our problem” and adding the the Kurds “are no angels.”

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post House Votes Overwhelmingly To Condemn Trump’s Decision To Remove Troops From Syria appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Evie Fordham

New York Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Rep. Ro Khanna, both Democrats, announced Wednesday they will vote against presumptive incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s rules package because they say it hinders progressive policies.

“I will be voting NO on the Rules package with PayGo. It is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history,” Khanna wrote on Twitter Wednesday.

The progressive politicians are against PAYGO, which stands for “pay as you go.” There are several variations of PAYGO, but it essentially mandates that new expenditures are offset by budget cuts or new revenue streams.

Its purpose is to keep from adding to the federal debt, but Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna see it as an obstacle to the progressive policies they want to implement like Medicare for all, tuition-free college and the Green New Deal.

“Tomorrow I will also vote No on the rules package, which is trying to slip in PAYGO. PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as Ro Khanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare [and] other [legislation]. We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter later Wednesday morning.

If eighteen Democrats including Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna vote against the rules package, Pelosi might have to go back to the drawing board. Pelosi’s package also contains a provision that automatically passes a resolution suspending the federal debt limit when the House passes an annual budget resolution, reported The Washington Times Wednesday.

This isn’t the first time Pelosi has faced pressure from progressives over rules for the 116th Congress. House Democrats caved to their progressive wing in December and decided to scrap a rule that would have required a three-fifths supermajority vote to pass any new tax hikes. Progressives wanted to do away with the rule completely to use tax hikes to fund programs like Medicare for all or tuition-free public colleges, which were two items on Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, reported The Washington Post.

Along with many other Democrats, both Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna have been pushing a “Green New Deal” as a wide-ranging plan to fight global warming. Khanna has said he wants a “strong” climate committee in the House despite opposition from Democratic higher-ups.

Follow Evie on Twitter @eviefordham.

Send tips to evie@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Ocasio-Cortez Will Vote Against Pelosi’s Rules Package Because It Hinders Medicare For All appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.