Republicans cave on government shut down, agree to 38B in cuts and no PP defunding

[OngoingFreedom]

I just sent this to Diane Black:

I am disappointed in the Republican deal/agreement to avoid a "so-called" governmental shutdown. 38 Billion is peanuts, and caving on the Planned Parenthood issue has me feeling very disappointed in my Representatives in government. Why were the Republicans afraid of the "shutdown"? I am sitting here shaking my head feeling that the Republicans are weak in regards to standing up to the Democrats. That the Republicans did not understand the mandate the American voters sent this last election. I understand that this is only one part of government, BUT! Rest assured, if you are unable to be bold enough to save our country from the unbelievably destructive path we have set ourselves on (re: debt) I have no problem considering someone who is come next primary. I am so disappointed in the Representatives.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's the kind of statement every one of them need to see.

The Democrats had the Republican leadership scared enough to cave. I

think Boehner might reconsider his priorities right now, instead of worrying about re-election.

[kieefer]

All of them are spineless wimps without an hint of courage.

[G27]

I'm not sure what's more stupid:

- that the Republicans would threaten to shut down the government over such a piss-ant amount of money ($38B), acting like they're actually accomplishing something, or,

2- caving when pushed.

Just as expected, the current crop of repubs are same as the old boss.

[Steelharp]

Just playing devil's advocate, but what about the fact that the dem's wanted $0 to begin with, and came up to $38bil? Not everything we wanted, but it's a start.

[leroy]

Folks:______________

Crimson hit a home run here:

....Just as expected, the current crop of repubs are same as the old boss. ...

He is exactly right. As my 21 year old is fond of sayin: "...They are all in it together!!!....". We need to throw 'em all out. They can probably get by with playing this game thru 2012, making the arguement that with the split congress that they are doin the best they can.

My guess is that that wont be a good idea after 2012. I'm like him; we need to throw the whole damned lot of them out!!

Libertarian leroy

[G27]

Just playing devil's advocate, but what about the fact that the dem's wanted $0 to begin with, and came up to $38bil? Not everything we wanted, but it's a start.

Who cares? We're talking about fighting over a bandaid while there's a gaping chest wound. Compromise is how we got to the point that it 'requires' almost $4T in tax revenues to run the government - the time for these kinds of pansy moves has passed.

I mean, they addressed ~2% of the deficit for this year alone. Yay. In the first three months of this year, we're $462B in the red, and they shaved a whopping 8% of that off the remaining spending budget.

Yah, great job. </sarcasm>

[Steelharp]

I agree; that's why I said "devil's advocate." Personally, I love what Ryan's going for.

[DWARREN123]

Let us throw them all out and start with something that will work.

Bunch of wimps to cave like this, stand your ground!

[JG55]

Republicans only control the House and have no control over the Senate or Whitehouse. Seems to me they they changed the conversation in DC from how much to spend to how much to cut. Didn't get everything but they were getting killed by the Dem Senators over Planned Parenthood and where starting to lose the Military Pay debate as well. Until the Republicans come up with away to change the debate on Planned Parent hood , it will stay funded.

[JG55]

Here's another take on it FWIW

Budget Deal Reached, Reagan Triumphant:

Debate now not whether to cut, but how much to cut

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:35 am - April 9, 2011.

Filed under: 112th Congress,National Politics

According to the Hill, in this morning’s wee hours:

President Obama and Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a last-minute deal Friday to avoid a government shutdown.

The agreement, which came after days of partisan sparring and rhetorical drama, would fund the government through the end of September and cut $78.5 billion compared to Obama’s proposed but never enacted fiscal 2011 budget.

Not sure if this counts as the “net spending cut” Obama promised in the 2008 campaign, but at least as Kristen Soltis (via Glenn Reynolds) put it while negotiations were still ongoing, ”the big takeaway from all of this: We are currently debating how much to cut rather than debating whether or not to cut.”

Philip Klein thinks the deal is one “conservatives should be happy about“:

To be sure, conservatives didn’t get much of what they wanted. They didn’t get $100 billion in cuts, or even $61 billion. Planned Parenthood won’t be defunded, neither will ObamaCare. And the EPA won’t be stripped of funding to regulate carbon emissions. But let’s get real. There’s a liberal president and a liberal Senate — House Majority Leader John Boehner cannot impose his will on the rest of the government.

But he did use what leverage he had to get a lot more out of Democrats than they wanted to give up. Democrats didn’t want any spending cuts, and President Obama’s original budget proposed spending that was $78.5 billion higher than what was agreed upon tonight. (The House and Senate are passing a six-day stopgap measure that will cut the first $2 billion and give lawmakers more time to craft a final draft of the bill.) The deal

includes

a provision that would deny federal funds to pay for abortions in Washington, DC and would allow for Senate votes on the Planned Parenthood funding ban and repeal of ObamaCare — both of which will force vulnerable Democrats into tough votes. And keep in mind that the ban on Planned Parenthood funding would have expired at the end of the budget year — Sept. 30 — anyway.

Not only did Boehner extract these concessions from Reid, but he managed to get these cuts without going through the ordeal of shutting down the government. Boehner now looks like an honest broker and somebody who is reasonable — a big departure from the image of the petty Speaker Newt Gingrich during the 1995/96 budget battles.

Klein is right that given the powers that be in Washington, we couldn’t have gotten an ideal deal. But, at least now the conversation has shifted. We’re no longer talking about “growing” the government, but shrinking it. The vision of Ronald Reagan is now the defining principle of federal budget negotiations. Congress is finally beginning to understand that

. A big part.

Kudos particularly to Speaker Boehner. He did a fine job in difficult circumstances. He helped fix a problem created by his predecessor’s inaction.

[leroy]

JG:__________

I think your analysis and the political calculation (...both yours and in the article...) is right. RE: The issue of moving from "spending" to "cutting".

I think that all of us (...especially me...) are sick of all polititians. None of this budget deficit stuff is new news. What you hear from us (...myself included...) is frustration and exaspiration at the current crop of polititians not moving fast enough to fix it.

My guess is that most conservatives will swallow hard and put up with this until 2012; but those doin the negotiating better be on the level, transparent, and without a hint of larceny (...real or imagined...), or they will be thrown out.

The Tea Party is the first manifestation of a third party ive seen in my lifetime (...i'll soon be 65...) that i believe will actually affect a great change in government. If the sitting Republicans don't do the right thing, i believe they will be thrown out; exactly as they should be.

Remember the old German Freikorps saying: "....Better to shoot a few innocent than to let one guilty get away!...". I dont see that the electorate throwing a few good legislators out and sending them home is a bad thing. It sends the right message to the others; and that may well happen in this next round of elections. If it doesnt; we will soon see the country devolve into third world status. Let's hope they do the right thing.

libertarian leroy

Edited April 9, 2011 by leroy
spellin!!!

[LagerHead]

I disagree. We went from no cuts to about 2% of the cuts it would require just break even. Big whoop. I'm so impressed. The Democrats most likely proposed the zero number to take the emphasis off of planned parenthood and other programs the Republicans wanted to defund so they could cave on that number and then force the Republicans to crawl uphill just to get the point where those programs were even in the picture. I think the Dems got exactly what they wanted. In the grand scheme of things the Dems had a hundred dollars to play with and they gave up a dollar. So we got a buck and they got to keep 99. Impressive.

[G27]

Yah, the point is, if the repubs aren't willing to dig their heals in and fight for substantive change now, when will they? They received as close to a mandate form the public as I've ever seen on the platform of cutting spending, and while technically they have dome that, I guarantee not one real fiscal conservative is happy with this.

If any repubs try to tout this as some sort of 'step in the right direction', I'll give 100% effort to remove them from office in 2012. We have to make some REAL changes NOW, I don't care if the senate and WH will shoot down everything - it's time to make a stand.

But alas, our politicians are too busy emulating the Roman Empire (intentional or not, doesn't matter) to deal with the single biggest threat to our country.

It's pathetic political pandering, period (alliteration intentional).

[JayC]

Here is my question... The Government identified 800,000 non-essential federal employees... If they're non-essential, why not get rid of them for good?

I personally was hoping for a government shutdown to show the country there is nothing getting shutdown that we really need.

[bigwakes]

The Tea Party is on the right track. They made a large dent in the political landscape and I feel like it's a snow ball rolling. 2012 is gonna be big, I just hope they don't screw things up beyond repair by then. Hopefully Boehner will at least minimize the damage.

Whatever happened to the spending freeze Obama passed that was to take effect this year?

[Steelharp]

I disagree. We went from no cuts to about 2% of the cuts it would require just break even. Big whoop. I'm so impressed.

So, your son in little league; goes all season with constant strike outs... and in the last game, he gets a base hit. Not a home run, but a base hit. He's still a loser in your eyes, right?

[dats82]

So, your son in little league; goes all season with constant strike outs... and in the last game, he gets a base hit. Not a home run, but a base hit. He's still a loser in your eyes, right?

These two things don't even compare, and yes, he still sucks.

[G27]

So, your son in little league; goes all season with constant strike outs... and in the last game, he gets a base hit. Not a home run, but a base hit. He's still a loser in your eyes, right?

Well, my fatherly bias might not let me admit he sucked, but yeah, he would indeed.

I'd say this is precisely the issue amongst many voters - they love their party / candidate / ideal so much they're biased to the reality of the issue - both parties currently suck.

So yah, thanks for driving my point home (har!) - only political bias allows these losers in DC to stay in office by suggesting that minor changes that will have basically zero net effect are in fact meaningful.

[leroy]

All:__________

I dont disagree with anything being said about moving quicker. There is no doubt in my mind that some of it is political manuvering.

RE: Jay's most excellent question:

....Here is my question... The Government identified 800,000 non-essential federal employees... If they're non-essential, why not get rid of them for good?

I personally was hoping for a government shutdown to show the country there is nothing getting shutdown that we really need....

I believe there is a day comming when all (...and that means all...) sectors of government will have to take an across the board reduction in staff, benefits, largesse, "entitlements", ect. to balance the budget. That will take a bunch of political courage and nerve because the "non producers" and those "on the dole" will howl and will threaten everyone (...you and me included --- not just polititians...). The fact is that we simply cannot continue to spend on everyone who sticks his hand out.

There should be zero borrowing. We are far better off to begin to do these cuts than we are to do the smoke and mirrors economic scholar stuff. We need to cut spending and entitlements. Period. That's how you balance your budget at home and at work. A failure to do so will make all of us poor.

leroy

[Mr. Brooks]

Here is my question... The Government identified 800,000 non-essential federal employees... If they're non-essential, why not get rid of them for good?

I personally was hoping for a government shutdown to show the country there is nothing getting shutdown that we really need.

Obama decided that the military was "non-essential". As it stands according to my LES I will only receive 1/4 my normal monthly pay.

Of course the welfare checks will go out in full and on time.

[daddyo]

Nothing has changed in Washington DC.

[Steelharp]

These two things don't even compare, and yes, he still sucks.

Love it! Spoken like a true 26 year old with no kids. LOL!!!

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm surprised some of you are actually surprised about this. It's the federal gov't...

[MacGyver]

Our political system is a zero sum game. What is good for one party must be bad for the other, and thats all they care about. "We the people" quit mattering at all a long time ago. Until we take back the system by kicking them all out and reminding them that they work to serve us, either party will sell us down the river in a heartbeat if it suits their mood.