Why don't House Rs send over an item by item budget?
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
I believe the sentiment is swinging our way.
we are forcing our leaders to represent us.
I am concerned the R leadership will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory over the next few days.
I implore them to make an historic stand and be remembered as the leaders who turned the tide.
we are forcing our leaders to represent us.
I am concerned the R leadership will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory over the next few days.
I implore them to make an historic stand and be remembered as the leaders who turned the tide.
I said a few days ago Krauthammer was making me sick with his very poor advice about giving up on this and pretending the Rs would gain something onthe debt ceiling.
I applaud his intelligent adjustment. (note to ricter... we are seeing a bit of this in many places in the media.
Sentiment has swung and is swinging fast... I suspect all stops will be pulled out by the opposition this weekend to try and get the normal sell out Rs to fabricate a scenario and sell out.)
he wrote this yesterday...
Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer
Who shut down Yellowstone?
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: October 3 E-mail the writer
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama_care are unseemly because it is âsettledâ law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument â except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama_care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate â the individual mandate â this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wonât even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a âGOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11â despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the âclean CR,â the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable â and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the âclean CRâ is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the presidentâs refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obamaâs first-term overreach, most specifically Obama_care. Todayâs frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the lawâs legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obama_care â which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen â passed without a single GOP vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1cb4a8-2c64-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html
I (jem) would also add the power for the purse resides with the house because the founding fathers knew the people re elect them every 2 years and could throw the bastards out.
I applaud his intelligent adjustment. (note to ricter... we are seeing a bit of this in many places in the media.
Sentiment has swung and is swinging fast... I suspect all stops will be pulled out by the opposition this weekend to try and get the normal sell out Rs to fabricate a scenario and sell out.)
he wrote this yesterday...
Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer
Who shut down Yellowstone?
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: October 3 E-mail the writer
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama_care are unseemly because it is âsettledâ law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument â except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama_care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate â the individual mandate â this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wonât even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a âGOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11â despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the âclean CR,â the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable â and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the âclean CRâ is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the presidentâs refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obamaâs first-term overreach, most specifically Obama_care. Todayâs frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the lawâs legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obama_care â which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen â passed without a single GOP vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1cb4a8-2c64-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html
I (jem) would also add the power for the purse resides with the house because the founding fathers knew the people re elect them every 2 years and could throw the bastards out.