Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Online Argumentative
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797
Likes: 40
 Quote:
John Boehner's high-stakes shutdown gameDriven by Tea Party fervour, the Republican party is demanding deep budget cuts – but a government shutdown carries big risks

Alex Slater guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 February 2011 14.00 GMT Article history

Months, even weeks, ago it might have been seen as inconceivable. But now, politicians on both sides of the aisle are bracing themselves for the perfect political storm: a showdown over government shutdown. That's right: in a mere matter of weeks, we may be looking at another government shutdown along the lines of 1995, when President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress feuded over funding for critical government programmes.

The government's current spending authorisation ends on the 4 March and reauthorisation must be granted to avoid a complete shutdown of government, government services and the employment of civil servants. Congress can pass a temporary funding resolution to keep the government operating – something that happened habitually under President Bush, whose demands to fund the Iraq war were frequent. But this time, Republicans will likely refuse to pass that funding resolution, thus triggering a shutdown.

The result of the same situation in 1995 was a massive public repudiation of an unreasonable Republican party, seen as willing to risk the very operation of government to appease their base. And that was one of the main drivers that propelled Clinton back to the Oval Office in 1996. Yet, this time, Republicans are convinced it might make sense to pick this fight – conscious of the agitation of their base and the Tea Party's appetite for indiscriminate budget cuts, regardless of consequences.

The makings of the showdown were painfully obvious last week, as members of the Republican party demanded – under massive pressure from Tea Party-backed representatives – further spending cuts in the congressional resolution being debated in the House of Representatives. House speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell opened a massive game of chicken by declaring that they would reject a short-term extension of any spending whatsoever – the spending necessary to keep all functions of government open and running – without further draconian cuts to those spending levels. In turn, President Obama, with public support firmly behind him, could very well veto the funding cuts, forcing the Republicans to back down.

Democrats are already in political ecstasy about the possibility. As Nadeam Elshami, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi said: "The last thing the American people need is for congressional Republicans … to draw a line in the sand that hinders keeping the government open." And a high-ranking aide to Pelosi told chiefs of staff on the hill that a government shutdown is more likely than not.

Republican leaders, despite their bravado, are painfully conscious of the potential political fallout. In fact, majority leader Eric Cantor summoned the Tea Party members and their freshmen colleagues on Friday to "educate them about the politics of a government shutdown". Aides insisted this meeting was not to warn off the lawmakers from spending cuts, but the very fact that the meeting was called and focused on this issue already smacks of political discomfort.

Government departments are already bracing for the storm. The social security administration last week warned their workers that temporary work stoppages might be needed. And the proposed cuts by Republicans of $1.7bn to that department might not only shut down those government offices temporarily, but seriously hurt the benefits offered to senior citizens and those with disabilities. That means social security claims would go unprocessed and pile up, causing bureaucratic congestion and personal hardship across the country.

All severe consequences. And easily avoidable. The reality is that a little negotiation could avoid even the partisan posturing. Democrats are ready to negotiate, understanding the Republican leaders' need to placate their base. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has emphasised that cuts could be achieved as the result of "fair negotiations". In other words, the Republicans are proposing their road or the road to shutdown, while Democrats remain ready to work on compromise. Being made to look the bad guys is exactly the scenario Republican leaders don't want.

Once again, this is a reflection of a number of factors at play. First, simple partisan politics: Republicans believe they have a winning message with the meat cleaver cuts they are proposing. After all, that was the message they believe propelled so many of their freshmen members to victory last November. But they forget that what works in swing districts might not appeal to the whole country, especially when seniors stop receiving their social security cheques. Second, the continuing power of the Tea Party io hold more moderate Republicans "accountable" (read: hostage) to deliver on massive spending cuts. For them, it's the first – the only – priority, and they have an almost admirable disregard for the political consequences and their chances of re-election.

For the Republican party as a whole, the consequences could be nothing less than disastrous in 2012. But for now, we can but watch the clock tick towards 4 March and the possibility of a government shutdown on a scale never seen before in the western world.

guardian

I get the feelling republicans have made the political calculation that a government shut down is the route they'll take. The tea party isn't going to accept much compromise and those elected officials depend on that base of voters.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236
Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..."
15000+ posts
Offline
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..."
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236
Likes: 15
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Th...they-re-in-Ohio

"But in the budget-cutting exercise this week, Boehner took a decidedly pro-spending stand on a major military item: a backup engine for the new F-35 strike fighter. Boehner had argued for the $450 million item in part because it translates into some 1,000 jobs in Ohio – which happens to be his home state.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates considers it “an unnecessary and extravagant expense,” however. So did most House members, including 100 Republicans who joined 123 Democrats to shoot it down."

Boehner is a hypocrite and a con man.

How can anyone take this clown seriously?


"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?"

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com] [/center]

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com][/center]
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
defense spending? unthinkable - we certainly can't have that!


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Online Argumentative
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,797
Likes: 40
So really if we just call everything "defense spending" it must than all be good? It was on a duplicate engine, not needed except for some pork for Boehner.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
Offline
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
Seems like most of the social programs that the Democrats masturbate about are done 'in the interests of national security', so... what's the difference?

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546
Likes: 1
living in 1962
15000+ posts
Offline
living in 1962
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546
Likes: 1
there is no difference. they both want the same thing: power and control. too many career politicians who've spent too long on capitol hill arguing with each other and who are out of touch with the reality of our country's problems.

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,853
Likes: 3
Son of Anarchist
15000+ posts
Offline
Son of Anarchist
15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,853
Likes: 3
not enough attention is being given to your country's most important assets: TITS of beautiful women.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016
Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,016
Likes: 31
If the Republicans are serious about reigning in spending, then I'd support a shutdown.

I think most Americans at this point recognize the unsustainability of our current economic situation, and would likewise support a shutdown to enforce serious cuts.
Emphasis on serious cuts.

If we "reduce deficits to 2006 levels" as Republicans and some Dems are suggesting, that's still 400 billion a year piling onto our 14 trillion-dollar cumulative debt.

The Republicans at this point are offering only slightly more in cuts than the Dems, and it's not enough. We need to be at a point where there is zero deficit added on each year, and where we have at least 200-300 billion a year in surplus, so we can begin paying down our debt. A 200-billion surplus would only be enough to pay the annual interest on the debt and not ever pay off the 14 trillion.

Anything short of that is unsustainable, and not recognizing the seriousness of the problem.

I want someone who is willing offer a federal budget that slashes all departments across the board a minimum of 15 to 20%. No sacred cows. If it's across the board, no one can argue the cuts played favorites.

There's not one citizen in America who could not reduce their spending by 10 or 20 percent if they were forced to. And most of us have in the last 5 years. And every federal department could do the same.
I'm convinced these cuts would not hurt social security or defense or whatever, it would just force them to set better priorities, and eliminate duplication, corruption and waste.

Gingrich was right in 1995-1996 when there was a shutdown. But the American public was shocked by this back then and was not prepared for it.
Now the people see the immediacy of reigning in the debt that is crushing us, and I think would support a shutdown if it comes to that again.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,430
Likes: 8
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Online Cool
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,430
Likes: 8
 Originally Posted By: Son of Mxy
not enough attention is being given to your country's most important assets: TITS of beautiful women.
Bill Clinton spent eight years focused on that subject. All he got was grief for his efforts.


"My friends have always been the best of me." -Doctor Who

"Well,whenever I'm confused,I just check my underwear. It holds most answers to life's questions." Abe Simpson

I can tell by the position of the sun in the sky, that is time for us to go. Until next time, I am Lothar of the Hill People!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546
Likes: 1
living in 1962
15000+ posts
Offline
living in 1962
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546
Likes: 1
 Originally Posted By: Son of Mxy
not enough attention is being given to your country's most important assets: TITS of beautiful women.



Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5