I feel like the party leaders are not demonstrating sufficient urgency about the shutdown. First, there was the dumb mistake of allowing certain popular items, like soldier pay, to continue. The President is right not to negotiate on Obamacare, and the party unity has been impressive to watch. But there’s some dangerous subtext here: the government shut down, and most people aren’t feeling it.
Here I go again, but aren’t we the party that believes government is there to help people? We should be making that point, and hard. Defense, disguised as offense.
ALL federal offices should be closed. Democratic Congressmen should be unavailable for negotiations.
By executive order during the de facto recess, the President should appoint the judges the Senate has on hold.
He should cancel military contracts in Republican districts.
Medicare payments to all providers should stop.
Any and all federal aid to states should stop, beginning with Texas.
The border patrol should be sent home immediately.
Whatever inspections are performed on food imports should stop. The Merchant Marines should stand down.
There should be no trading of US government bonds or currency trading.
Should I go on?
There’s not negotiating, and then there’s not negotiating.
This is a watershed moment. John Boehner is playing Neville Chamberlain and trying to appease people within his own party (no I’m not calling them Nazis, it’s just the most convenient appeasement example), and he seems to think he can rein them back in. Well he can’t … what did LBJ say about feeding the alligator? They empowered themselves by practically having third party status. Hell, they respond to the State of the Union, and networks show it.
This is bad for Boehner, but it’s worse for us. We have two adversaries now. The “mainstream” GOP is being way too cute, voting for shutdown and then blaming the Tea Partiers, but that’s fine with the Tea guys as long as they get their way.
And make no mistake, these guys are not corporate phonies (or rather they may be, but that is incidental), they are true believers. It’s not that they’re electorally safe because of gerrymandering by having the shutdown, it’s that they want to shut it down. Drown government in the bathtub, remember?
They won’t stop until it hurts. This could take months.
Sorry to say it, kids, but we have to accelerate their pain. Politics aint beanbag? This is war. Right now we’re losing.
It’s time for the Wolf’s Head.
JimC says
Then please tell me. I would love to be wrong about this.
danfromwaltham says
Why is compromise a bad thing? You need to when we have divided government.
Question. Is it true under Obamacare, if my employee puts me on the public exchanges, they cannot help with subsidizing the premiums. But that is why Congress got the exemption from Obama, we pay 72% of their health care costs and they are on the public exchanges. Do I understand this correctly?
SomervilleTom says
The first step towards any sort of “compromise” or “civility” is to release the hostages, put down the weapons, and walk away from the building. It is utterly impossible to “negotiate” under the threat of coercion — that isn’t “negotiation”, it’s plain old extortion.
The GOP and Tea Party has refused to negotiate for years — primarily because they are well aware that a majority of American voters reject their positions. Their objection to the Affordable Care Act and their continuing personal animosity to Barack Obama have been rejected by the American public over and over.
John Boehner is a “profile in cowardice” — he could end this impasse today by scheduling votes on a clean continuing resolution and clean debt ceiling increase, allowing the government to reopen and markets to resume their upward recovery. Enough moderate Republicans in the Congress (I see numbers like 90-100) that such a measure would easily pass. He doesn’t do that because the extremist Tea Party faction will remove him as Speaker if he does — he likes the power. He is a coward because he refuses to do what he KNOWS is the right thing primarily because he fears the personal impact from the extremists in his own party.
Those two steps — a clean CR and clean debt ceiling increase — have been on the table all along. Accepting those, so that negotiations about how to best proceed into the future, are the needed steps toward “compromise”.
What we see instead are the actions of extremist thugs — extremist thugs who have taken over the GOP.
danfromwaltham says
And the 10th hostage, Obamacare, they will release it so long as the “hostage” does not leave the country (waive individual mandate for 1yr).
I don’t see anything wrong with this idea, better than seeing the village burn.
pogo says
…to play another 5 innings yesterday, after being blown out after playing a full 9 innings?
The rules, as spelled out in the Constitution, of our system of government have been played out. Congress passed the bill, the President signed it into law, the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional and opponents failed to convince the voters to elect them so the law can be repealed.
Game. Match Point. What part of the Constitution do you hate, because you obviously want to burn the Constitution to get what you want–gutting the ACA.
danfromwaltham says
1 branch, duly elected by the people, are withholding a check with conditions. I don’t believe it is unconstitutional. I do believe it is cruel to withhold monies for clinical trials for kids suffering from cancer, or closing a park to the WW II vets.
SomervilleTom says
The debt ceiling restricts ONLY spending that congress has ALREADY APPROVED. I’m reasonably (but not totally) confident that the needed CR is the same.
The time to attach conditions on a check is when you agree to receive the services the check pays for. What the GOP is doing is waiting until the work has been done and the bill received to THEN attempt to “negotiate” the contract.
Surely you know already know this.
pogo says
…power of the purse issue
kbusch says
Whatever it is the Republicans are doing is perfectly Constitutional. Yes, it is reckless, stupid, callous, and despicable, but it is not unconstitutional.
Where it does undermine the Constitution is that our system of government, unlike a parliamentary system, depends upon both parties taking part in governing. Otherwise, divided government cannot work. Otherwise, the filibuster renders the U.S. ungovernable.
pogo says
…but for a party that wraps itself in the constitution, it is the height of hypocrisy.
kbusch says
it should be noted, did not foresee political parties taking hold. The election of 1800, even, was a surprise. Their idea was that man of high character, what was called the “natural aristocracy”, would be elected to positions of responsibility.
Moreover, a government as large as our current federal government would have also been unimaginable to them. Men like Jefferson particularly disliked the growth of government functions.
I’d argue that the Tea Party expresses preferences not so very far from Madison’s and Jefferson’s. The trouble doesn’t so much lie with constitutionality. Rather, those anachronistic preferences have aged badly; they have become entirely maladaptive to our modern world.
merrimackguy says
surrender? I’m not getting your analogy.
I think the shutdown threat is bad political strategy, but I’m not in the shoes of those reps. I don’t think they’ve “taken over” the GOP- they just aren’t controlled by the GOP. As has been pointed out here many times, they are in super safe districts so they do what they want, and in particular what primary voters want. All within the rules of the game. You could say they should do it for their country, but BMG types in their district are not going to giving them any props, and they could face a lot of hostility from their base. Not sure if you picked up on any of it when it was relevant, but while BMG was castigating Scott Brown from the left, thousand were howling about him from the far right, all for trying to steer a quasi-middle ground. So from a pure survival standpoint I can see where those reps are coming from.
Boehner in another time would be riding high. Must suck to think that others have had the second most powerful position in the country, and all he has is abuse from all sides.
fenway49 says
Their base believes certain things are possible and desirable because they’ve been told so by irresponsible demagogues. They’re in “super-safe districts” created for them by people of the same political stripe. If the monster they created threatens to eat them, so be it. In the meantime some of these clowns should go read Profiles in Courage.
This is the kind of false equivalence that makes me furious. Are we now ignoring the merits of everything and feeling sorry for anyone who might be howled about “from the far right?” That encompasses pretty much everyone who might ever be caught between nihilistic Tea Party lunacy and a tepid Democratic Party playing pure defense (the “clean CR” we can’t seem to get preserves all the sequester cuts from the last threatened default).
merrimackguy says
The intransigent Congressman don’t care about you. Why should they? That’s the problem with polarization.
You see it already in the “Charlie Baker is the devil” posts already. He’s about as far left as you can go and still be a Republican, but he might as well be Jim DeMint around here.
As to gerrymandering it’s only because of 2010 that it’s an issue for you. If the majority of gerrymandering state legislators were on the other side, I’m sure there would be no complaint, just like there’s no complaints in MA.
I only feel sorry for Boehner from a dramatic perspective, as if he was a TV character. I feel nothing for him personally.
fenway49 says
Name another time in our history when a party provoked a partial shutdown of the federal government and threatened a first-ever default on our bond obligations in order to win legislative concessions it could never get any other way. And this after they cut federal spending by 8% across the board by doing the same thing in 2011. If you’re not enraged by this there’s something wrong with you.
And spare me the false equivalences on gerrymandering. Massachusetts congressional districts satisfy all traditional redistricting guidelines. It just so happens that Democrats are spread pretty evenly across the state.
There is no inherent virute in always saying both sides are equally guilty. They’re not.
kbusch says
Why is this guy here again? Do we need intellectually dishonest people represented on Blue Mass Group?
Congress passes laws. The Affordable Care Act was not dictated by the White House.
sabutai says
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have 100 House Republicans who have agreed that the shutdown will continue until thirty days have passed without a legal abortion in the United States.
SomervilleTom says
Shut it down. All of it. Turn out the lights, lock the doors, and suggest that, for example, soldiers and families call their nearest Republican member of congress to find out when their pay will resume.
President Obama has never demonstrated the stomach for hard-nosed confrontation. In addition to not being beanbag, effective politics is nearly always a good-cop/bad-cop game.
It’s time to bring in the bad cops.
daves says
The President should follow the law, not act like a terrorist. Assuming it continues, the shutdown will impact more and more people over time. Federal courts are closed, no SBA loans, DOL offices closed, etc. etc. etc.
Do I understand you correctly? Community hospitals should go bankrupt? Nursing homes should stop buying food for their residents? The President should announce that he has voluntarily decided that Social Security checks should not be mailed?
Really?
SomervilleTom says
The specific aspect I referred to was the “emergency” legislation passed to allow continued funding of soldier pay. That legislation should not have been done.
If the law says “pay it”, then it should be paid. Otherwise, it should be turned off. If a federal website goes dark, it should stay dark until the funds to restart it are appropriated.
The mostly southern states whose Republican legislators shout the loudest about “reducing the deficit” are first in the line of states who receive far more federal funding than they provide through taxes and fees. I think the President should immediately reduce the flow of federal funding to those states as much as needed to make a net zero flow. Immediately, as in “right now”.
Our well-intentioned efforts to “do the right thing” while these right-wing lies about taxes, government spending, and the economy have gained traction has effectively enabled and empowered these thugs.
We see the same thing here in Massachusetts — the well-intentioned effort to keep the MBTA running in spite of crushing deficits has only caused the maroons of the legislature to continue cutting MBTA funding — “See? We told you they could afford it. The trains are still running”.
The time has come to show the “bad cop”, and “put a bit of stick about”. Yes, of course the President should follow the law. And when the law, as written and as followed, causes Aunt Marge’s nursing home to run out of food — so that the family has bring her meals themselves — and causes Little Jimmy to come home from school because there’s no money to pay the electricity, then that’s EXACTLY what should happen.
In my view, that is the best way to demonstrate precisely how draconian we have allowed “the law” to become. We have already shredded the federal “safety net”, and yet the right wingers demand more.
Yes, follow the law — to the letter.
JimC says
As it stands, we’ve allowed the GOP to pay no price for their maneuver. They should. And if they’re willing to have people literally suffer for their political games, they should be run out of town on a rail.
But of course if it actually came to that, I’d be saying we need to be the adults and compromise on that stuff.
cannoneo says
Public opinion is against the GOP and there are major cracks in their unity. Taking active steps to make the pain worse, even if you predict (without certainty) it will end the pain sooner, risks shifting the anger toward the president. And it could make the GOP dig in, prolonging the shutdown and the suffering. One thing I don’t think it could ever do is teach the average tea partier a lesson about the necessities of government. They’re not in touch with reality.
Even say it’s got a 75% chance of working. The downside is way worse than the upside is good. You might end the shutdown sooner and double the political win. Or you might hurt a lot of people unnecessarily and snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory.
kbusch says
Add to that.
Polls frequently show robust majorities of Republicans against compromise in general and robust majorities of Democrats favoring compromise in general. In this specific instance, the Democrats in leadership cannot afford to run too counter to this typical preference of Democratic voters. The hard-nosed approach suggested by jimc and favored by somervilletom would be a public relations nightmare; it would hand the GOP the political advantage. Witness the World War II vets trying to visit the monument. Now multiply that by 100. Yikes!
Looking at things from a policy level, yes, it is still important not to give in to the hostage takers. Negotiations for things short of a Continuing Resolution will have the GOP insisting on funding everything but the safety net. The Party of Callousness (see Food Stamps, cuts to) would then find itself in a position where it didn’t care about the hostages.
One interesting development, Ken Cuccinelli, the rabid social conservative running to be governor of Virginia, has come out strongly against the shutdown. I bet a lot of Virginians work for the federal government. Some of them are Republicans. Maybe we should hear from more Virginian Republicans on the shutdown.
JimC says
I don’t think anger would shift toward the president. I think people would see that his hand was forced.
danfromwaltham says
That’s why Obama and Reid are so obstinate. Ted Cruz effectively prevented any new gun control legislation, and now, Sen. Cruz stands between full implementation of Obamacare. He is our modern day “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”, “David VS Goliath”, if you will.
When the IRS (same dept known for targeting Tea Party) waives the employee mandate (companies with 50+ workers), Ted says why not for small business and the individual mandate for me and you?
When Office of Personal Management (director appointed by the President) exempts Congress from the statute which forbids workers whose employers provide tax-subsidized insurance benefits to also receive premium subsidies, Ted Cruz called this “first-class for Congress, coach-class for the rest of us”. And I agree with Ted on both counts.
I humbly suggest this battle is actually for 2016. Stop “Cruz Control” now, or get the “Cruz Missile” in 2016. See below what Cruz did to Durbin on the Senate Floor.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8j91rrAqCRA
howlandlewnatick says
Used to be so. Now it’s government against its people. Party matters not.
Most visible is the National Park Service. Closing not only national monuments, but extending to private property, evicting the elderly, even attempting to close state parks. More of intimidating the people than helping. Anyone believe that a few words from the political side couldn’t stop these attacks on the innocent? Government seems more like the hostage takers that cut off body parts to force their ransom than a legitimate operation.
Does the tactic do more to widen the gulf of fear and hatred between a government and its people than solve a problem?
“Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction” –Barack Obama
Christopher says
There are some places under joint jurisdiction and if the money is not appropriated Uncle Sam cannot contribute his share. It stinks, but that does result in limited operations even when other sources are involved.
jconway says
Polls show that if the election were held tomorrow the Dems would have a precarious 1 seat majority. Hopefully those numbers continue to shift in our favor.
It’s a great strategy on the GOPs part, prevent Obama from doing anything and then say he is ineffective. But it’s about to run the clock. If we can keep the Senate, take back the House, we could pass sensible gun control and immigration reform and call it a day. Hopefully the next Dem nominee brings with her (it’s gonna be Hill or Liz, so why bother saying him 🙂 ) even bigger majorities.
johnk says
NYT, the impact of Citizens United. A topic area I touched upon in the mayor’s race. Not the best back and forth debate on the topic in the post, but dangers exist.
danfromwaltham says
I think you were busy on the Boston Mayoral diary when Andrei took on anyone and everyone who wants to overturn Citizens United. He put on a clinic, like Larry Bird in a 3 point contest. Or even better, remember old WWF Wrestling when Andre The Giant would take on 2 or 3 guys at once, and win. That’s what it reminded me of. See for yourself.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2013/10/ma-5-open-thread-who-is-running-the-best-campaign/#comment-324217
johnk says
thanks for pointing it out.
johnk says
the money and distorted “influence” that are the problem.
Christopher says
Andrei was pretty convincingly shown by a couple of us that he hadn’t a clue on the CU case.