Who Shut Down the Government?

[RWNJ]

10/4/2013 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

[133743Hokie]

"The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government."

So many forget the separation of powers exists for a reason

[Homebrew]

Since Obamacare is a tax, but the Tax bill originated in the senate not the a house, it is unconstitutional per the origination clause.

"The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government."

So many forget the separation of powers exists for a reason

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[USN_Hokie]

Since Obamacare is a tax, but the Tax bill originated in the senate not the a house, it is unconstitutional per the origination clause.

"The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government."

So many forget the separation of powers exists for a reason

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

The Senate took a budget bill previously submitted to the Senate, stripped out everything except for the bill #, added the Obamacare language, and passed it. It's completely bullshirt, but that's what they did and called it kosher.

[VoiceOfReason]

There is no need for a 10 paragraph dissertation on Who Shut Down the Government. It is obvious to anyone not wearing RED state glasses.

Here is all you need to know:
1) Which party had been planning for a month to shutdown the government? Republicans.
2) What is the only legislation that would pass both the full Senate and the full House if put to the vote? The clean CR has the votes, but Boehner will not call a vote because it is not supported by a majority of Rs. It is, however, supported by a majority of House Members according to reports. (The "dirty" CR is not supported by a majority of Senators even if Reid put it to a vote.)

I really fail to see why the Rs invest so much energy in putting out the illusions that it is not them shutting down the government. I would think they should stand up and say "Damn right, we shut down the government and here is why..." Make the case to the people... but please stop asking them to be stupid.

[RiverguyVT]

There is no need for a 10 paragraph dissertation on Who Shut Down the Government. It is obvious to anyone not wearing RED state glasses.

Here is all you need to know:
1) Which party had been planning for a month to shutdown the government? Republicans.
2) What is the only legislation that would pass both the full Senate and the full House if put to the vote? The clean CR has the votes, but Boehner will not call a vote because it is not supported by a majority of Rs. It is, however, supported by a majority of House Members according to reports. (The "dirty" CR is not supported by a majority of Senators even if Reid put it to a vote.)

I really fail to see why the Rs invest so much energy in putting out the illusions that it is not them shutting down the government. I would think they should stand up and say "Damn right, we shut down the government and here is why..." Make the case to the people... but please stop asking them to be stupid.

Care to address the points in the article?

[VoiceOfReason]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

[Hokie5150]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

Bottom line is that winning the political point is more important to the Ds than reopening the government. Pres. Obama has already made unilateral changes to the ACA and there is no real reason not to so again as a point of negotiation. If the state of the government were more important than winning the political point, delaying the implementation of the individual mandate (as was done with the employer mandate) would be on the table. It's all politics at this point and, as such, both parties share the blame.

[133743Hokie]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

as to point #1...the Rs best time of leverage wasn't when the most harm could be done, it was simply when they had the most leverage. And why do you keep inferring that the Rs should just accede to what the Ds want? What about negotiation and compromise? Or is that just a one-way street?

as to point 2...for most of history the budget has been presented and approved piecemeal. It is only in recent times when it was expected that the entire budget be submitted and approved as one singular document

[HokieFanDC]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

as to point #1...the Rs best time of leverage wasn't when the most harm could be done, it was simply when they had the most leverage. And why do you keep inferring that the Rs should just accede to what the Ds want? What about negotiation and compromise? Or is that just a one-way street?

as to point 2...for most of history the budget has been presented and approved piecemeal. It is only in recent times when it was expected that the entire budget be submitted and approved as one singular document

The CR isn't a budget. It's silly to compare the 2. The CR is simply the procedure to keep the govt running until the Senate and House can put their big boy pants on, and pass an actual budget. Fight the fight over the budget (which could have been done this year), not over this.

[133743Hokie]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

as to point #1...the Rs best time of leverage wasn't when the most harm could be done, it was simply when they had the most leverage. And why do you keep inferring that the Rs should just accede to what the Ds want? What about negotiation and compromise? Or is that just a one-way street?

as to point 2...for most of history the budget has been presented and approved piecemeal. It is only in recent times when it was expected that the entire budget be submitted and approved as one singular document

The CR isn't a budget. It's silly to compare the 2. The CR is simply the procedure to keep the govt running until the Senate and House can put their big boy pants on, and pass an actual budget. Fight the fight over the budget (which could have been done this year), not over this.

A CR has served as our budget for over 3 years. While technically not a budget, it is an official spending authorization. Semantics

[HokieFanDC]

Not semantics when you're talking about what has traditionally been passed piecemeal, and what hasn't. Budget = piecemeal, CR=whole, traditionally.
Just to be clear, I'm all for funding the CR piecemeal, but there is no real reason for the Senate to do so, and the argument that it makes sense b/c the budget is done that way, is not correct.

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

as to point #1...the Rs best time of leverage wasn't when the most harm could be done, it was simply when they had the most leverage. And why do you keep inferring that the Rs should just accede to what the Ds want? What about negotiation and compromise? Or is that just a one-way street?

as to point 2...for most of history the budget has been presented and approved piecemeal. It is only in recent times when it was expected that the entire budget be submitted and approved as one singular document

The CR isn't a budget. It's silly to compare the 2. The CR is simply the procedure to keep the govt running until the Senate and House can put their big boy pants on, and pass an actual budget. Fight the fight over the budget (which could have been done this year), not over this.

A CR has served as our budget for over 3 years. While technically not a budget, it is an official spending authorization. Semantics

[TheH2]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

as to point #1...the Rs best time of leverage wasn't when the most harm could be done, it was simply when they had the most leverage. And why do you keep inferring that the Rs should just accede to what the Ds want? What about negotiation and compromise? Or is that just a one-way street?

as to point 2...for most of history the budget has been presented and approved piecemeal. It is only in recent times when it was expected that the entire budget be submitted and approved as one singular document

If your goal is compromise you start say in April, not on September 30th.

[awesome guy]

Care to address the points in the article?

I believe I did that when I said you don't need a 10 paragraph explanation to explain something which is much more simple. In my experience, if someone needs an hour to explain something, he is usually BS-ing.

Because you asked nicely, I will elaborate further on a few points:
1) It does not matter who was "last to act". Boehner and the Rs engineered and used the process so that Reid would have the last move on their plan. That does not mean they can claim that Reid shut down the government. Rs planned this out... this is about the Rs deciding that their time of best leverage is when the most damage can be done to the country and it's citizens. Also, sending the "dirty CR" back to the Senate (which does not have the votes to pass it) is only half the equation. The other option is for the House to accept the Senate version (the "Clean CR") which it has been reported has the votes to pass. But they are not the majority of R votes, so Boehner will not call for a vote.

2) The Ds are not accepting piecemeal resolutions, as they shouldn't. Why? The Rs are trying to be "too clever by half" here. If the Ds accept the partials... the Rs will happily keep giving partials for every agency except one. Guess which bill won't come from the House... the bill funding the ACA. Honestly, do the Rs think the Ds are stupid? The Rs think they can trick the the Ds that easily?

I know the majority on the board want to believe everything is the Ds fault, but the government shutdown is a trademarked R operation. The country knows this and the news cycle has moved on to other topics, like how this can get resolved. Not sure why the Rs felt the need to embarrass themselves by claiming they didn't do it.

as to point #1...the Rs best time of leverage wasn't when the most harm could be done, it was simply when they had the most leverage. And why do you keep inferring that the Rs should just accede to what the Ds want? What about negotiation and compromise? Or is that just a one-way street?

as to point 2...for most of history the budget has been presented and approved piecemeal. It is only in recent times when it was expected that the entire budget be submitted and approved as one singular document

If your goal is compromise you start say in April, not on September 30th.

This is for only Republicans right?

[TheH2]

This is for only Republicans right?

Of course it isn't. I never implied otherwise.

What is your point? What are you referencing?

[HokieJoe]

I really fail to see why the Rs invest so much energy in putting out the illusions that it is not them shutting down the government. I would think they should stand up and say "Damn right, we shut down the government and here is why..." Make the case to the people... but please stop asking them to be stupid.

Well, they did vote Obama into office twice. Asking them not to be stupid may be a moot point.

[HvilleHokie]

the politicians shut it down. the same ones we elected and pay to keep government running.

if you pick a side and say that side is right and the other is wrong, you are part of the problem. they are all hypocrites only interested in their own careers.

obama, reid, pelosi, boehner, cruz, paul... the whole lot of them.