https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...aR2?li=BBorjTa
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is — to put it mildly — disliked. Yet in the early morning hours Wednesday, as the Senate 
debated a $3.5 trillion budget resolution, every U.S. senator but four voted for an 
amendment Hawley proposed that advocated putting 100,000 more police officers on the streets.
     

    © Anjali Nair  Police officers hired? Zero. Attack ads made? Many.   Earlier in the evening, 
all 99 senators present approved a similar amendment from Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., that would strip federal funding from local governments that “defund the police.”
For advocates and others who would very much like more police accountability, not spending more money to hire officers, 
this felt like a betrayal. How could the Democrats, who had talked such a big game about police reform, have 
rolled over so easily?
 
Well,  the answer is simple: They didn’t. At least not substantively. The  votes were part of the budget resolution process known in that  all-too-cute Washington way as “vote-a-rama.” Senators spend hours  introducing and voting upon amendments that, in short, do absolutely  nothing.
             
 You see, step one in the plan to get the bulk of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda through Congress was to 
pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the Senate.  Step two was approving the budget resolution that will let Democrats  invest in progressive priorities like mitigating climate change and  extending the child tax credit expansion.
As part of the race to  approve that resolution, and finally go on vacation, the Senate spent  roughly 14 hours going through 47 amendments. A lot of those amendments  involved creating “a deficit-neutral reserve fund,” which is a phrase no  normal human has ever uttered.
So, what is a deficit-neutral  reserve fund? To answer that, let’s start with a simple fact: U.S.  senators love two things: No. 1, the rules of the Senate; No. 2,  figuring out loopholes to the rules of the Senate.
Under the  Senate’s rules, any amendment to a budget resolution has to deal with  actual outlays or intakes of funds — that’s why the 
Senate parliamentarian vetoed raising the minimum wage via the Covid-19 relief bill debate earlier this year.
But  the process that took place earlier this week was only the first half  of a longer process. The resolution that was debated and eventually  passed was basically the instruction manual for Senate committees on how  to spend certain top-line amounts of money. As 
I explained previously,  the committees then go and figure out actual legislation to flesh out  that vague outline. Once that work is done, the committees’ efforts are  put together into one giant spending bill that meets the guidelines the  first resolution established.
The loophole comes when you realize  that all the amendments the Senate went through are entirely nonbinding.  Committees aren’t required to act on any of them. That goes double when  you realize “a deficit-neutral reserve fund” is basically a work of  fiction.
Dylan Matthews — now at Vox, then writing for The Washington Post — 
explained it like this in 2013:
As  this CRS report explains, Section 310(d) of the Budget Act "bars the  consideration of any amendment to a reconciliation bill that would  increase the deficit." Hence the "deficit-neutral" part.  And what about  "reserve fund"? According to CRS, "'Reserve fund' refers to any  provision establishing procedures to revise spending or revenue levels,  or both, if certain legislation is enacted or some other condition is  met." So that specifies that the policies for which reserve funds are  established won't take effect unless other legislation gets passed as  well.
Translation: None of this matters. For  Hawley's or Tuberville's amendment to come into effect, Congress would  have to actually pass new laws in this upcoming fiscal year that involve  hiring more police or punishing cities that defund their police forces.  And that’s not happening anytime soon.
So why go through the  hassle? And why would Democrats vote for these Republican amendments  that do nothing but make their liberal and progressive supporters angry?  Well, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., made that pretty clear in a speech  praising Tuberville’s amendment.
 
I  mean, sure, logically it makes sense to assume Democrats deprived GOP  campaigns of a specific attack in the midterms. But we saw last year  that it doesn’t matter if moderate Democrats say, repeatedly, that they  don’t want police defunded — 
they’ll be attacked for it anyway.
Now, despite Democrats being sure that 
attacking Republicans as the real party that wants to defund the police was a good idea, they’re cornered into backing proposals like Hawley’s to keep that talking point alive.
 Moreover,  as Time’s Molly Ball put it on CNN on Wednesday: “The real political  problem here for the Democrats here, obviously, is the apple pie  component of this. Because there are fans of pumpkin pie, there are fans  of cherry pie. … So having put the entire Senate on the record in favor  of apple pie, they might have to answer for that down the road.”
She’s  right: Any way you slice it, this is why the GOP loves these  vote-a-ramas. They’re chances to force their opponents to take votes on  issues that Democrats aren’t prepared to fight over. Which is exactly  what Hawley’s amendment accomplished.
Will it put a single extra  police officer on the street? No. But will it pop up in any number of  attack ads in fall 2022? Absolutely.
                                                                                            
No additional comment.