Due to my Twitter hiatus, I can’t retweet this tweet by @pourmecoffee — so I’ll blog it and blockquote it instead:
Goodnight moon. Goodnight Boehner, goodnight Reid. Goodnight Bachmann, goodnight Trump’s hair, goodnight morons everywhere.
LOL!!!
By the way, you can consider this an open thread on the impending government shutdown if you want. I don’t really have anything much to say about it, other than ugh, and — in the immortal words of, well, 19-year-old Brendan Loy, yelling out from the Daily Trojan balcony to the USC campus at large after Bush was (prematurely, it turned out) declared the winner on Election Night 2000 — “EVERYONE SUCKS!!!”
(grin) Some say “Bush was (prematurely, it turned out) declared the winner” and some say “Bush was (accurately, it turned out) declared the winner” …
If this is an open thread on the impending gov’t shutdown, then I submit for your viewing pleasure Eleanor Holmes Norton, asshat extraordinaire.
Someone’s name is notably missing from that list….surely President Obama is also part of the problem…perhaps even more than Donald Trump or his hair?
C’mon, don’t be blamin’ my man Barack for no gov’t shutdown … what, just because the party he leads completely failed to pass a frickin’ budget last year when they controlled the WH, Senate and House… Obama is awesome!
surely President Obama is also part of the problem…perhaps even more than Donald Trump or his hair?
Dude… “goodnight Trump’s hair” is what makes it funny. If you replaced that with “goodnight Obama,” that would just be stupid.
On the substance of the issue, I’ll just say this. Obama and the Democrats deserve plenty of blame for the impasse. BUT, it’s pretty much inexcusable in my book that Republicans are using the threat of a shutdown as an excuse to fight intractable culture-war battles, like trying to cut off Planned Parenthood funding. Gimme a break. That’s not a legitimate budgetary issue. If you want to cut off Planned Parenthood funding, get a GOP Senate and a GOP president, and go nuts. But don’t hold millions of people hostage in a game of chicken over a government shutdown in an effort to “Rahm” such a purely ideology-driven measure down the Dems’ throats now. I can’t only imagine the morbid outrage on the Right if the Dems tried the equivalent of this. If the government shuts down because the Republicans wanted a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President to agree to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood (and NPR and so forth), that’s utterly absurd and indefensible.
P.S. And to the extent the Tea Party is demanding it, that just proves that the Tea Party is a f***ing joke. If they were saying “cut $50 billion more or shut it down!” that would be different, but by all accounts, the parties are basically in agreement on the numbers; it’s the “policy riders” that are holding up the negotiations. Those have nothing whatsoever to do with the purported central mission of the Tea Party, namely reducing the size and scope of government. To spend all this energy fighting over ideologically driven culture-war nonsense that amounts to budgetary pocket change, when we need to be having a serious discussion of Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget (and the presently nonexistent Democratic alternative), is sheer lunacy and a utter #FAIL on the part of everyone, but especially the supposedly “fiscally conservative” GOP and Tea Party, who ought to be the ones pushing us to tackle the serious budgetary issues they supposedly care so much about, instead of insisting we get completely distracted by bullshit.
By Boehner’s account less than an hour ago, “there is only one reason” why there is no deal and that is spending. Perhaps he’s full of hot air, perhaps not, but obviously not everyone agrees that this is all about funding for Planned Parenthood.
Politico:
What Reid’s saying is consistent with the reporting over the last several days — that the parties’ negotiations over budget numbers were between and among numbers the mid- to high-30s (in billions), that the differences were small and very likely to be bridged. Now, maybe that’s wrong, and the Republicans are actually demanding $50 billion or the Dems are only really offering $25 billion, but I assume the GOP isn’t totally incompetent, and knows how to leak such information to the media to counter a damaging narrative that this is no longer a budget negotiation but a social policy dispute…and yet they haven’t. So that suggests to me that Reid is telling the truth, at least generally, and Boehner & co. are blowing smoke.
Note the non-specific nature of the GOP “counter”: that “there is still a dispute over actual spending numbers and that no agreement has been achieved on how deep to slash the 2011 federal budget.” On its face, that could mean a dispute between $38.25 billion and $38.26 billion, with the $.01 billion perhaps representing….funding for Planned Parenthood!! I’m not saying that’s literally all that’s at issue, I’m sure there’s a bit more, but the point is, the lack of actual specifics from the GOP (both on and off the record) is very suspicious. Again, if the GOP were telling the truth, I assume they know how to leak real information to make that point clear.
More likely, Boehner is trying to appease his base — which, as polls clearly show, is much more averse to compromise (as a matter of principle!) on this issue than the Democratic base is — by being inflexible on non-budgetary issues, while trying to create the impression with the broader public that it’s still a budgetary debate, since the average voter will have the same reaction I do if they realize this has actually become a debate almost exclusively about funding Planned Parenthood and NPR rather than about the federal budget. That’s certainly the Occam’s Razor explanation for what’s going on.
Or even more likely, the GOP is only too happy to let Reid, Schumer, and their dutiful supporters on the Left foam at the mouth about the impasse being only about PP funding, when in fact the riders are just leverage for the GOP to get the largest budget cuts it can out of the Dems. The riders only affect spending for the rest of this year. With them as the focus of the debate, the larger budget cuts the GOP wants become a side issue and will be much easier to obtain in the end. I suspect that Boehner et al. played this one beautifully, and the Dems will give away the store on cuts so long as the PP and other riders are stricken.
P.S. I completely disagree that the average voter would think funding for PP is an “utterly absurd and indefensible” issue with respect to passing a budget. Rather, I suspect that more voters would have the same reaction I do, which is that while no one is denying that women have the right to have an abortion, the gov’t should not subsidize so controversial a practice, and those who insist on using public money to fund it by threatening a shutdown over it are the f***ing joke.
while no one is denying that women have the right to have an abortion, the gov’t should not subsidize so controversial a practice
Check your facts, dude. You’ve been
punk’ddemogogue’d!I realize “anti-cancer screening and anti-birth control” is Democratic spin, but to claim that this is about government directly “subsidizing” abortion is just factually false. Subsidizing an organization that also, with separate monies, funds abortion — yes. Subsidizing abortion — no.
I recognize you can argue that such funding “walls” are relatively meaningless; i.e., if PP had less federal money for its non-abortion services, it might need to allocate some of its “abortion money” to non-abortion services, and thus the federal money for non-abortion services is indirectly subsidizing abortions. But you could make the same argument for federal funding of hospitals that also happen to provide abortions, or federal grants to any organization that, in turn, might donate other funds to an organization like PP… there is no logical end point to that sort of argument.
In any case, it’s simply inaccurate or dishonest to say that this is literally about direct federal funding of abortion. That’s already illegal.
P.S. those who insist on using public money to fund it by threatening a shutdown over it are the f***ing joke
No, Joe. No. You’re smarter than such b.s. The Republicans, not the Dems, are the ones trying to change the existing legal status quo with a de-funding measure. The Dems aren’t trying to pass a new “funding” law; they are simply saying, no, we’re not going to change existing law in that fashion with a policy rider on this budget.
Moreover, again, to expect a Democratic Senate and President to acquiesce in such a thing is utterly absurd, just as absurd as if a Democratic House tried to “Rahm” single-payer health care or legalized gay marriage or some other pet liberal priority into a budget at the eleventh hour before a shutdown and try to get a Republican Senate and President to sign off on it. To the extent they are actually trying to get this rider passed, it’s totally nihilistic — the rider might as well say “SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT” because that’s the ONLY thing it can possibly accomplish if it stays in the bill.
On the other hand, maybe your 10:32 comment is right, and this is all a negotiating ploy. That may be true. I guess we’ll find out in the next 11 hours or so.
I’m familiar with the Hyde Amendment, which does not technically prohibit all gov’t-funding of abortion (it applies only to the annual appropriations bill that funds the DHHS).
Second, you are smarter than to compare PP to a hospital where abortions happen to take place. PP is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., and claims that it provides mostly “anti-cancer screening and anti-birth control” services are not only Democrat spin, but are dubious at best. Moreover, PP makes no such fine distinction when holding various pro-choice political activities, fundraising, etc. at its gov’t-funded facilities. So yes, I see the funding “wall” you refer to is a relatively meaningless legal fiction.
Third, I realize that it’s the GOP who want to change the status quo with a de-funding measure. But that doesn’t mean that such a measure is not within the political mainstream. In fact, contrary to your claim that those supporting such a measure are a “f***cking joke”, I think the average voter is more likely to agree with the GOP on PP despite being the “movant.”
Finally, I don’t expect the Dems to acquiesce at all, and as I indicated above, I doubt the GOP does either. I’m just responding to your claim that funding PP is “not a legitimate budgetary issue.” It is.
Woops, ignore the “anti-“
It’s a legitimate issue. It’s not a legitimate budgetary issue. What I mean by that is, it has nothing to do with debts and deficits and balancing the budget and the size of government, etc. It’s a purely ideological issue — the numbers involved are too inconsequential to matter to the broader budget picture. It’s a cultural war hobby horse, not a budget debate, in much the same way that some aspects of the 2009 stimulus were not really stimulus measures so much as pet Democratic/liberal projects. As such, I would argue that the policy rider re: Planned Parenthood has no place in this particular discussion, under these particular circumstances, with the entire federal budget (and various sectors of the fragile economy) being held hostage to it. That it’s being used in such a fashion demonstrates a great degree of unseriousness on the part of those using it that way.
Fair enough. The dollar amounts are indeed pretty small. I would just say that few real spending decisions aren’t ideological to some extent, and you have to pick your battles big enough to matter yet small enough to win. If the GOP senses that they have the upper hand in forcing a shutdown because the Dems insist on maintaining public funding for PP, then more power to them. But again, I’d be surprised if this was really all just about abortion.
@Joe, as a member of the vast moderate conspiracy, I’d like to say that I don’t have a problem with the feds subsidizing cheap care for reproductive health in the US. I do have a problem with douchebags shutting down the government and holding people’s salaries hostage while they pay themselves. And frankly, the gov’t somehow managed to pass budgets when we had Democrats in the House majority. Why is it that Republicans find that shutting down the gov’t is a legitimate option? I think this is bound to backfire on them like it did in 95. We can’t shit on our military and our seniors just because John Boehner doesn’t like NPR. He needs to get his House in order and offer up a legitimate budget compromise. Right now, the Republicans are being held hostage by Tea Partiers. It’s going to backfire in the federal gov’t and I think it’ll backfire in Texas as well. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Brendan #12 – since I cannot find the explicit article at the URL which you purport to quote, let me quote a different one from that same URL – only I offer the permalink for the specific response Check your facts, dude …
I’m surprised to see so many liberals demand funding for one dire need or another today. If only they were similarly interested last year when former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid and President Obama made absolutely no efforts to provide funding for any their pet issue or any others. For the first time in modern budget history, last year’s Democrat-controlled Congress failed to complete its basic responsibility. In 2010, it would’ve taken no Republican votes to do this.
Thanks to Speaker Boehner’s leadership, it will also take no further Republican votes today to keep the government open and keep our military paid. His chamber already passed a measure to do both. Obama and Reid have the absolute ability now to do both, yet just like in 2010, they are choosing to do nothing. It’s up to them … and it always has been.
Oh – and it should have been “Goodnight TOTUS” rather than “Goodnight Trumps’ hair” …
And Reid is a “mormon” not a “moron” … wait, hang on, you do have a point about him with which sensible folk find themselves forced to agree … OK, you are rght about Reid …
Becky, I also don’t have a problem with with the feds subsidizing cheap care for reproductive health. I think you know that’s not the issue. There are many organizations besides PP that provide valuable Title X services like breast cancer screening, HIV prevention education, counseling and pregnancy diagnosis.
I do have a problem with douchebags shutting down the government and holding people’s salaries hostage while they pay themselves.
Then I eagerly await your praise for Michele Bachmann.
the gov’t somehow managed to pass budgets when we had Democrats in the House majority.
Then what was it about having Dems in the WH and controlling both the House and Senate the prevented them from passing a budget last year?
Becky #18 – “the gov’t somehow managed to pass budgets when we had Democrats in the House majority” … you seem to have missed some recent historical facts to which Joe Mama #4 and my #19 specifically refer …
Or did you forget to add the part about “the gov’t somehow managed to pass budgets when we had Democrats in the House majority except in 2010“ ? If so, I fixed it for you …
The hypocrisy in the Republcans/Tea Party position to defund planned parenthood or not pay for abortions is incredible. They don’t want to provide 200 dollars for an abortion, but rather force the tax payers to support an unwanted child for 18 years via medical, WIC, food stamps, socialized medicine and services (The very things they want to cut).
As a moral issue, Republicans want to force people to raise children they would prefer to murder. Republicans should win the award for parental units of the year. Stress on the word “units”.
As a moral issue, Republicans want to force people to raise children they would prefer to murder.
Completely untrue.
True, we do want to stop people from murdering their unborn children, but we are perfectly fine with them giving the child up for adoption. (I would actually support bringing back orphanages…the fostercare system is a shambles)
Damn..Joe Mama and Alasdair already made all the good points……
BUT, it’s pretty much inexcusable in my book that Republicans are using the threat of a shutdown as an excuse to fight intractable culture-war battles, like trying to cut off Planned Parenthood funding. Gimme a break. That’s not a legitimate budgetary issue. If you want to cut off Planned Parenthood funding, get a GOP Senate and a GOP president, and go nuts. But don’t hold millions of people hostage in a game of chicken over a government shutdown in an effort to “Rahm” such a purely ideology-driven measure down the Dems’ throats now. I can’t only imagine the morbid outrage on the Right if the Dems tried the equivalent of this. If the government shuts down because the Republicans wanted a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President to agree to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood (and NPR and so forth), that’s utterly absurd and indefensible.
We’re talking millions of dollars here (versus billions). So the Democrats are willing to compromise on billions of spending cuts in other areas, but their sacred cow which is keeping them from accepting a budget deal is maintaining funding for PP? That in and of itself speaks to who is really pushing a culture-war-ish ideological agenda here.
While overall I think a government shutdown hurts the GOP more than Obama or the Democrats, the plus side Boehner and co. have going for them is A. this is very early in the political cycle (i.e. reelection for the principals is more than 1.5 years away), and B. the GOP will be able to tee off on the abortion issue in 2012 thanks to this obtuse Little Bighorn maneuver on the part of Sen. Majority Leader Reid and co. With Reid and Obama holding onto the PP / abortion issue as their main reason for holding out on a compromise, the GOP effectively has the Dems’ testicles in hand. Well played, Boehner, well played!
As a moral issue, Republicans want to force people to raise children they would prefer to murder.
Described that way, I fail to see how Republicans come out looking more evil than Democrats….
The Republicans of today remind me of pre-Obama Democrats, losing with a winning hand.
The economy is a shambles and the headlines are full of debt and government spending. Republicans could win in 2012 just by doing nothing. Instead, they choose to press on wedge issues like defunding PP that may have played well years ago, but are now horribly unpopular among all but Teabaggers.
As an astute observer, I would label this the “Tea Party Dumbass Hic Effect”, whereby a pack of illiiterate cud-chewing ignorami funded by lunatic billionaire brothers hijack Republican policy and consign the party to Trump-for-President oblivion.
Instead of referring to the Ryan budget, Republicans should call their proposal the “Obama 2012 budget”. That’s what it is.
Casey #27 – as has been pointe out, the GOP in the House have done what is needed to avert a Government Shutdown by passing needed House legislation … if the Senate chooses to block it, then that is the Senate shutting down Government … if the Senate also passes it, and Obama vetoes it, then that is Obama shutting down Government …
So – tell us again, how is this the GOP shutting down Government ?
It is genuinely mind-boggling how the NYT/WaPo/LAT have managed to become *less* reliable and *less* truthful than weather forecasters and used car salescritters …
@Alasdair – Yet again you are completely and utterly full of bullshit. The GOP has NOT done what is needed to avert a shutdown, they have included non-budget necessary partisan policy riders that they KNOW the Democrats wouldn’t agree to in a million years, AND SHOULDN’T HAVE TO to pass a budget.
If the GOP passed a budget that would quintuple the deficit in a year would you say they had still done what is needed to avert a Government shutdown? Simply passing the bill is NOT doing enough if the bill is unreasonable and/or the GOP is not willing to negotiate on the bill.
You wouldn’t be claiming this AT ALL if the situation was reversed and the Democrats had passed the bill in the house and the GOP controlled Senate wasn’t willing to pass it because it added funding to a program the GOP opposed.
Removing funding to PP is not even remotely necessary to pass a budget, and since not a single dime of it is used to fund abortions, its complete and utter bullshit to claim that this is about abortion which the GOP is doing.
David K:
The Republicans have done infinitely more than the Democrats to avoid a shutdown.
The simple fact is, if the Democrats had done their job when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, we wouldn’t be having this fight.
O unbelievably wise David K #29 – to quote The One with Whose Arrival, by His Own Words, “The seas have stopped rising …” – “We won !” … and the GOP has the mandate to represent the majority of voters in the US …
Once you can show me some responsible Democrat politicians currently in Congress, you might have the barest nub of a stump of a limb upon which to stand … with the current crop of Democrat congresscritters, who essentially didn’t even vote “Present” on the 2010 Federal Budget, *they* are the ones who make the current Speaker and Majority Party in the House seem like elder Statespersons … (grin) … I know – at the moment, politically, it sucks to be you ! You have my deepest sympathy …
I do agree with one sentiment that you expressed, albeit while I do not agree with the grammar/syntax you used … “its complete and utter bullshit to claim that this is about abortion” … so why are Reid and Pelosi so adamant it’s about abortion ?
So Boehner got the Dems to $38.5 billion in cuts and dropped the PP rider? Like I said, well played. I was almost hoping to be proven wrong and face lighter traffic during my commute…
Ross Douthat has the goods on the ridiculous spin from PP defenders that abortion accounts for only 3% of its activities: