First, I would like to point out that I fully support a shutdown of the government. The aspects of the State that I think are essential are not in jeopardy of being turned away; we only face the fat of the pig.
Second, this is the hammer I would wield if I were a republican lawmaker. I would simply slip the paper to Reid and Obama, look them straight in the eye and say, “Manage your career as you see fit.”
There is support across the political spectrum for delaying the individual mandate one year and using the government funding bill to implement the delay. Additionally, the survey found that by a 5-point margin, respondents support using every opportunity to defund or delay the ACA rather than simply passing a “clean” bill to fund the government.
Fully 56 percent of respondents support the individual mandate delay in the context of a continuing resolution debate, including 55 percent of independents, and 52 percent overall in “swing districts.” The survey also found that strong majorities across the spectrum oppose the Affordable Care Act, including 60 percent of independents, and a majority in “swing districts.”
If brought before the people in districts that will swing, defunding the bill will win.
Game over.
Whichever party yields, winds up being blamed for any disruption caused.
Therefore, the party with the weaker hand should always yield swiftly, and the party with the stronger hand should never yield. And since the constitution gives the party that controls the house of representatives the overwhelmingly stronger hand, the Republicans would win – except that the whole thing is staged. They intend to lose, in order to persuade their voters that they have no choice but go along with Obamacare.
Spending bills must originate in the house of representatives. So the house of representative can vote to fund and open anything that the senate defunds and shuts down. Suppose, for example, the government shuts down the Applachian Home for Homeless Kittens. Pitiful youtube videos appear of lost and homeless kittens, mewling sadly. Then the House of Reps simply passes a bill to fund the Applachian Home for Homeless Kittens. The senate then has to reject the bill, (because it fails to fund Obamacare as well as kittens) and look like bad guys.
If the senate allows the bill to fund the Applachian Home for Homeless Kittens, then the Republicans just fund the entire government piecemeal, except for Obamacare.
Republicans should be working around the clock to continually send funding bills to the senate, which those cruel flint hearted kitten hating Democrat senators have to reject around the clock.
If the Republicans were serious, they would be sending a stream of bills to the senate day and night to fund anything and everything, except Obamacare. Especially to fund kittens.
Which is to say, they would pass a budget or budgets, legislation that authorizes the government to spend on some things and not other things, something that has been missing from Washington for many years.
Instead, after seven days of completely symbolic government shutdown that does not inconvenience anyone, they will cry, “Oh, we cannot take the pain, it is horrible, horrible, far too horrible. We capitulate. We tried, and tried, but we have no choice but to vote to fund Obamacare.”
Then after voting to fund Obamacare, their polls will take a dive, and they will say, “See how terrible it is to oppose any government spending. We have absolutely no alternative but to exponentially increase government spending without end!”
If they are not voting to fund the poor little kittens, which is to say, passing a budget, they are not serious.
If they are not voting to fund the poor little kittens, which is to say, passing a budget, they are not serious.
Interesting take. The only problem is that they need language that changes Obamacare.
Well, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee pushed that, and the GOP couldn’t even get that done. Well-played, you political genius.
Well-played, you political genius.
Now now….
Bitter…..bitter, table for two!
😉
I’m hardly bitter, my job isn’t dependent on the federal government and my point was that Thales’s proposal was actually tested out and failed miserably. I hope that tempers his enthusiasm to suggest his own views on how things should play out in the future.
The politics of this will play really poorly for the GOP. Most people see the 2012 election as a referendum in part on Obamacare. Obama won easily. There were actually more votes for the House of Reps for Democrats, but districting gave the GOP a majority, Democrats expanded their Senate margin. If Obamacare is as bad as the GOP thinks, then they should let it fail on its own rather than risking the economy in a government shut down.
The way this looks in the media and to most Americans is the tea party (supported by 22% of the population) holding the economy and government option to try to undo a law passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President. The President must not surrender. It would be a horrible precedent if a minority could hold the country hostage for a law it doesn’t like, regardless of what opinion polls might say (they are fickle). That would damage the democracy, the GOP is in a position to do more harm to the country than al qaeda, and the President cannot give that kind of tactic a victory – then both parties will be tempted to do that more often, rather than going through the usual process of passing laws and letting elections be the barometer.
The politics of this will play really poorly for the GOP.
Indeed, the GOP is mostly being blamed, however, the polls are not showing an overwhelming feeling of that. It’s only 46-36 GOT to Obama.
Most people see the 2012 election as a referendum in part on Obamacare. Obama won easily.
If you look, people are unfavorable to Obama’s policies but they are high on the man. His win is certainly not a mandate for Obamacare.
The way this looks in the media and to most Americans is the tea party (supported by 22% of the population) holding the economy and government option to try to undo a law passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President.
So, I am waffling on this one. On the one hand I fully support the concept that the budget should be sent through on it’s own merits and not attached with some other law.
On the other had, Reid has been using his procedural advantage the whole time regarding budgets and Obamacare. He never allows a vote that might go against him and then when he does allow a vote, he fills the amendment tree.
And let’s not even talk about his failure to pass a budget for all those years.
There are shenanigans everywhere and all are to blame. If Reid would seriously consider legislation that would impact Obamacare I could see him being innocent – but he’s a turkey wen it comes to procedural nonsense.
First, I would like to point out that I fully support a shutdown of the government.
How about the 70% of staff for our intelligence agencies that are furloughed? You support that? The shutting down of national parks?
You know what, it’s pointless to even ask. As soon as you announce that you’re in favor of shutting the government down simply because you don’t like the budget that would otherwise be democratically instituted, you’ve announced that you aren’t actually going to discuss this as a rational, adult, voter. You applaud a party that doesn’t like the fair results of our government and thus takes its ball and goes home. You live in a country that has many differing viewpoints, and on Obamacare and, especially, the budget, you are in a small minority. Accept that and fight to change views instead of simply refusing to be a functional country.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to come up with a reason why Obamacare is an illegitimate law. Or a reason why it is impossible for the GOP to democratically repeal the law. Or, really, any reason why Obamacare is uniquely abhorrent and requires this kind of brinksmanship. Until then, you are just bitching because you don’t like being in a minority on an issue.
You know what, it’s pointless to even ask. As soon as you announce that you’re in favor of shutting the government down simply because you don’t like the budget that would otherwise be democratically instituted, you’ve announced that you aren’t actually going to discuss this as a rational, adult, voter.
Now wait. I am in favor of cutting ALL non-essential government. Permanently. Ask me if I support the department of education or agriculture. That has been my position for a long time now. And it has nothing to do with the current budget.
The only government we should have should be “essential government”. I mean seriously, what in the world do we have need of “non-essential” government for.
You live in a country that has many differing viewpoints, and on Obamacare and, especially, the budget, you are in a small minority.
No. No I’m not.
Most people favor a compromise. Most people oppose Obamacare.
Where I might be in the minority is in not blaming republicans.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to come up with a reason why Obamacare is an illegitimate law.
It was passed without a single bipartisan vote. A once in a century majority passed a law against the will of the people. They claimed, and still claim, that it is not a tax yet the Court declared it constitutional on the basis that it IS a tax. In fact, as a point of order during the debate in the senate, the ruling was that it was constitutional because it was a tax.
It was legally passed albeit “punked” so. For a true test, Reid should allow votes on it. But he won’t. And even when he does allow votes even close to it, he fills the amendment tree.
It was passed without a single bipartisan vote.
Best evidence of GOP tribalism everywhere. Find me a single source, anywhere, that suggests that you need a bipartisan vote. Or that a bipartisan vote is even more likely to make something a good law.
You can’t have a GOP that is hell bent on opposing everything an administration puts forth, and still loses because they are in the minority, and then insist that the law is somehow less than the rest because you refused to vote for it.
For a true test, Reid should allow votes on it.
Why? Because you don’t like it? As you say, it legally passed. There is no reason to allow votes on it. Meanwhile, it’s the definition of chutzpah for the party that made the filibuster a daily exercise to complain that Reid is unfairly keeping votes away. No one expects the majority party to start allowing referendums on laws that were passed under previous congresses simply because the opposition party took the other chamber. Laws are laws, they aren’t subject to expiry when the supporting party slips out of power.
To the extent that you rely on polls to suggest that people don’t want Obamacare, by the way, they oppose shutting the government down by a much greater margin. So, I suppose you oppose the GOP on that too?
Best evidence of GOP tribalism everywhere. Find me a single source, anywhere, that suggests that you need a bipartisan vote. Or that a bipartisan vote is even more likely to make something a good law.
The point is that the democrats are making it seem that the law was a normal law passed by the benefit of both parties.
It wasn’t. It was a gigantic sausage fest and could only be done by shenanigans.
You can’t have a GOP that is hell bent on opposing everything an administration puts forth, and still loses because they are in the minority,
Two things:
1. The republicans felt back then that they were being treated like the democrats feel they are being treated here in North Carolina. It was a super majority that passed that bill. Any other moment in the last century and the bill doesn’t pass.
2. The House is a republican majority. Find me a single source that says the House, when held by the minority party of the senate, needs to bend over and kiss the senate’s ass.
Why? Because you don’t like it?
Because that is what a leader does. Reid has two jobs, 1 is to manage the senate’s business. The other is to vote on stuff like a normal senator.. What he’s doing is preventing legislation that he personally would vote no on.
And that is irresponsible.
No one expects the majority party to start allowing referendums on laws that were passed under previous congresses simply because the opposition party took the other chamber.
Except that the majority party has the votes to vote it down Unless he’s scared he doesn’t. Which means the majority of the senate isn’t being heard because he doesn’t like it.
So, I suppose you oppose the GOP on that too?
I admit to going back and forth The Libertarian in me sees this as a perfect example of how we can get by with much MUCH less government. The other part of me sees this republicans playing dirty pool.
But then again, what comes first? A budget under which the law makers must make do? Or the laws which then drive the budget?
Back to the meal thing. Do the budget writers have to force a budget that includes steak? Or does the cooking committee have to prepare meals according to the budget?
1. Your bipartisan point is just silly, and you have to admit that at some point. A law passed without a single bipartisan vote is just as valid as a law that passes unanimously. That’s the point of voting thresholds. Laws aren’t more or less valid by margins of victory or bipartisanship. If your point had any validity, then every time control of Congress changed we should go through all the previous laws and vote again. We don’t do that of course, because we don’t require bipartisanship to pass a law.
2. If the GOP feels like NC Democrats do, then they should adopt the same approach: sue to invalidate the law in court, as envisioned by the Constitution. The NC Democrats aren’t holding a fiscal knife to the state’s throat.
3. No one is saying the House needs to bend over and kiss the senate’s ass. That’s good, because that would be mixing metaphors unforgivably. More to the point, people are asking the House to pass a budget to fund the govt’s functions. Or to conference with the Senate once in the last six months. Or to put a clean CR up for a vote. None of these are kissing the Senate’s ass.
4. What he’s doing is preventing legislation that he personally would vote no on. And that is irresponsible. In light of your current defense of the shutdown, this is ridiculous beyond belief. Regardless, you’re mischaracterizing what Reid is doing, and you don’t get to say that it’s irresponsible to “not allow legislation” that he disapproves of while praising the current BS.
5. But then again, what comes first? A budget under which the law makers must make do? Or the laws which then drive the budget? This is a joke, right? We don’t make a budget and then pass all the laws that we can fit in it. This is a ridiculous question.
6. Back to the meal thing. Do the budget writers have to force a budget that includes steak? Or does the cooking committee have to prepare meals according to the budget?
This is just a bad analogy, because the cooking committee is really the executive branch in your world. Congress made the weekly meal plan and chose steak. One of the members of Congress is supposed to go to the bank and get the cash for their shopping run, but he didn’t want steak so he refuses to let anyone get money for food until they change the meal plan. The cooking committee is saying, “You made a meal plan, I agreed to it, and we’re not going to change it just because that one guy is being a selfish, stubborn, spoiled prick.” There, fixed your analogy.
1. Of course you are right. The law is “lawful” and valid. I object to the marketing of the statements.
2. I draw the parallel only to illustrate how irate the Tea Party is.
3. I agree that Boehner is as guilty as Reid in not allowing a clean CR.
4. My defense of the shutdown is less government is good. I am waffling on the tactics of the house and admit to feeling sympathetic that a clean budget should be passed.
5. That’s how I budget my household. Companies their R&D and whatnot. But more important, THAT is the Tea Party’s point.
6. LOL