Priorities in order for shutdown

From our U.S. Rep’s office:

Cravaack: A Shutdown Should Not Affect Our Troops

(Washington, DC) – Today, U.S. Congressman Chip Cravaack (MN-8) made the following statement after the House of Representatives passed a one-week continuing resolution that funds the Department of Defense for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and the rest of the federal government until April 15:

“I supported this latest continuing resolution because it will fund the Department of Defense through the end of the fiscal year. That means our war fighters – especially those in conflict zones – will not see their pay interrupted. I cannot in good conscience allow that to happen.

“Having served for 24 years in the United States Navy, I know firsthand the sacrifices our service members and their families make to ensure we can live peacefully and in a free society. A government shutdown should never negatively affect them.”

The bill also makes a further $12 billion in cuts to discretionary spending, bringing the total for the last six weeks to $22 billion.

45 Comments

patty

about 12 years ago

But, but, but ... I just heard an interview with the wife of a Marine stationed in Iraq.  They're being told that paychecks won't be issued if there is a shut down.  Now, granted, it was an interview on NPR, so who knows.  I'll check and see what FOX News is reporting; that's always so fair and balanced.

Claire

about 12 years ago

So glad Crackers has his priorities straight.

adam

about 12 years ago

An almost shutdown. Like the last almost shutdown. Or the almost one before that? Or the almost one before that?

Such teases.

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

Why are you all so against our troops being paid?

edgeways

about 12 years ago

Why are you all so against our troops being paid?

Why are you against everyone else being paid? Current US budget peg military spending about 60% of the US budget and yet congress wants to significantly defund everything but military spending. Yeah, sure pay the troops. But pay all the other low level employees as well. Hell, Chippers didn't even say "pay the troops" he says fund the DoD, and oh, that means the troops will get paid (too).

(every second, literally every second that ticks by $35,000 is spent on the military. The time to write this comment? 10 million dollars have trickled away. ~ 2 million dollars a minute)

-Berv

about 12 years ago

I just filed my taxes.  I will be STEAMED if those crooks hold up my refund.

OGDuluthian

about 12 years ago

Does everybody understand that this entire problem could have been avoided if the House, Senate and White House would have approved the 2011 budget last October. Once again our elected officials have exercised dereliction of duty and are not held accountable. I can hardly wait to see what kind of whack-job spin Claire will put on this fact.

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

Hey Edge, the post was about funding the troops, not about everyone else. Nor did I say I was against everyone else getting paid. So chill out, don't make assumptions, and get your facts straight about what others post.

-Berv

about 12 years ago

Ya know, I don't exactly 'get' the concept of a government shutdown. Seems like if they can't get their stuff together that it should be dissolved and a new one put into place. Of the People, By the People, For the People kind of stuff. What gives them the right to just shutdown? Does this mean we don't have to obey Federal Laws  during that time? Who's going to enforce them anyway?

spooman

about 12 years ago

Funny thing is, we could survive just fine without a good number of governmental departments ... such as the DoEd and DOE.  I hope they do shut it down ... people will realize how little the federal government does for us on a daily basis.

zra

about 12 years ago

Sure, we could survive just fine if we eliminated the Dept of Ed ... but your kids would slip further and further behind the rest of the world in terms of quality and quantity of that education they're getting.

Which is just fine if your kids don't mind having jobs that don't require that good of an education in the first place. Lucky for them, McDonald's is always hiring.

OGDuluthian

about 12 years ago

Spot On Spooman. Finally someone who actually gets it!

rougement

about 12 years ago

The economy is definitely heading in the right direction of late. The quickest way to halt that growth is through a shutdown. There is an election next year. That's all.

Claire

about 12 years ago

Rougement gets it. Sad that the Republicans hate Obama so much they'll play games with people's lives to make him look bad before the midterm elections next year. Scott Fitzgerald even said as much on Fox News about what Walker is doing in Wisconsin. Seriously, Spooman and OGDuluthian, you gotta get off this hate train. Barack Obama is the rightfully elected president of the United States. Deal with it.

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

So this is the Republicans fault? I do believe that the Democrats, who held a majority in the house and senate and also held the white house, could have done their job and passed a budget last October. Of course doing so would not allow them to spend spend spend and now blame Republicans for not getting this done. 
This mess is entirely the Democrats making.

Claire

about 12 years ago

I misspoke earlier: it's beyond wanting to make Obama look bad. The one issue the Republicans refuse to budge on is wanting to defund women's healthcare. Senator Reid said yesterday "the only thing holding up an agreement is ideology." He is right: the Republicans are so against funding women's healthcare that they would shut down the government and imperil our country's economic recovery over it.

Yes, my young and naive Jadiaz, this budget impasse is entirely the Republicans's fault, and if you watched more than Fox News, you'd have figured it out. The Republicans are holding America hostage because the party is at its core misogynistic.

Bill

about 12 years ago

Jadiaz, get off Edge's case. You're the one making assumptions. Not one post before you said anything about not paying the troops so why are you assuming they don't want the troops paid?

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

Bill, that was the obvious tone of this post. 

Claire, I do watch more than Fox. I am not naive. No one has answered the question of why the Democrats did not pass a budget in the first place. Because you can't. So, please, quit blaming Republicans who have only held the majority in the house since January. 

This is purely the Democrats fault.

Bill

about 12 years ago

Jadiaz, no it wan't. Bill

Jim

about 12 years ago

I, for one, am ready for women to take over the world. There's nothing better than a woman in control. Hmmm, Bachman together with Palin? Then you mix in the Frenchies Carla Bruni and Sheikha Mozah from Qatar and you've got a pretty good looking cabinet. "City girls just seem to find out early, how to open doors with just a smile..."

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

Did you read the post? You know, about funding the DoD so those in the military can still get paid? How would you take claires comment about "Chippers" priorities? I asked a simple question and got blasted by Edge. It's funny you, Bill, feel the need to step in even though you haven't contributed to the main points at all.
I also ask again, how can the Republicans be at fault, when a Democrat majority was in power back in October 2010 when the budget was supposed to be passed?

adam

about 12 years ago

Why are you all so against Raytheon being paid?

These one people were in charge this one time. Then these other people were. Recently these one people didn't do anything. (Much like the time before when these other people didn't do anything.) Now, after a series of pseudo-crisises, years and dithering, stuff's all F'd. I totally blame these people.

Claire

about 12 years ago

I just wish the Republicans wouldn't wrap themselves in the flag like this. Oh, the troops won't get paid. Well, Repubs, get your fingers out of your asses and make some concessions, OK? Especially when it comes to funding women's healthcare!

And Jim, this country would go to hell in a handbasket if a whackjob like Michele Bachmann and an ignoramus like Sarah Palin ran things. Puh-lease.

B-man

about 12 years ago

I'm with Adam on this one.  The REPRESENTATIVES are to blame, both sides, all the time, every year.  They are the only ones who get to F it all up and still get paid.  Only them and our weathermen have that luxury.  The system is broke and it will take a lot of blood to change it.  

Why not send a letter? cause no one in a position to change this problem really cares about how this effects us.  Repeal congressional health care and freeze the salaries, that will get their attention.  we have the right to do that correct?  of the people, for the people, by the people?  no we don't cause they changed the laws to protect themselves from their own policies.

POLITICIANS OUT OF PUBLIC OFFICE!

OGDuluthian

about 12 years ago

Claire, The only one spreading hate is you. If you could take off the rose colored glasses for a minute, maybe you could see that this issue is not about left or right, it is about the way our elected officials spend way more than we take in.

I would hope that you can agree that this deficit spending cannot continue, which is going to result in some major cuts to government spending ... if I may quote you "deal with it!"

Will

about 12 years ago

Both parties' politicians have been irresponsible, stubborn, and short-sighted over the course of recent budget discussions.

Just wanted to ask edgeways where her or she got the 60% figure for military spending. The CBO says very close to 20% with Social Security slightly higer and also very close to 20%, Medicare & Medicaid around 21%, other social safety net programs around 15%, net interest near 7%, and the remainder ("discretionary spending") at roughly 17%.

Don't take my question as a disagreement of your implied point, I think we spend too much on the military, as well.

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

It's an interesting article, but like everyone here, fails to address the fact that Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency before and on October 1st, 2010 when this budget was supposed to be completed by. Why didn't they get it done? 

Now a whole new group is in as of January, and suddenly Republicans are the problem? Sorry, not buying that. Democrats had the majorities and the power to get this done on time, but didn't. Don't cloud the issue or pass the buck when this Budget was suppossed to be passed LAST YEAR. 

There is no one to blame but the Democrats who didn't get it done when they had the power to pass whatever budget they wanted; ON TIME.

Sure Republicans are holding out. They now control the House and instead of getting things crammed down their throats, they are extering the power given to them by the American people. 

So, I ask again, why couldn't Democrats get this done on time? And why are Republicans to blame for their failure to do so?

Will

about 12 years ago

They're both to blame. And, the reasons the Democrats didn't get this done last summer despite control of both houses of Congress and the White House were a lack of a filibuster-proof majority, Congressional procedural rules, and a toxic political environment with a looming election.

Democrats used procedural rules (whether you're happy about it or not) to pass the healthcare reform bill with virtually no Republican support. They were able to do so because they made the bill (theoretically) off-budget. And, if a bill doesn't touch the budget, you can get it to the floor (avoid a filibuster) without 60 votes. Bitter Republican Congressfolks essentially thought at that point (blame them or not) "fine, we're going to say NO to everything that we can say no to and you Democrats just try to pass a budget we don't LOVE, you don't have 60 votes - ha, ha!" With an election just around the corner, neither party thought it was worth creating an entirely new, polarizing budget debate that would dominate the news; they were willing to coast into November on their then-current stances. 

Six months too late, we still don't have a budget. Who's to blame? Voters. We encourage and reward toxic debate. Republicans won't THINK of raising taxes (and their most vocal constituents cheer loudly). Democrats won't TOLERATE federal cuts in Planned Parenthood funding (and their loudest supporters scream)! Compromise? Nope. Rational debate? Nope. A discussion of the big items in our budget (military spending, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid)? Nope. A fair assessment of the real issue - a tough budget in a tough economic and monetary climate? Nope. Lots of sound bites? Yep. Posturing for the base in the next election? Yep. 

Not all Republicans watch Fox; not all Democrats love Keith Olberman. I don't think we've made that clear to our politicians. It's our fault. :(

Jadiaz

about 12 years ago

Thank you for having the guts to answer my question with a well thought out response. I can agree with your post.

Lojasmo

about 12 years ago

Jadiaz:  democrats did not pass a budget because they are a bunch of chicken-shit politicians.

Can you kindly move on?

Lojasmo

about 12 years ago

Will said it better.

Claire

about 12 years ago

Good column by Eugene Robinson in the Sunday DNT about how the Republicans squandered their "win" over the Dems in this whole budget fiasco.

spooman

about 12 years ago

The reason the Dems didn't pass a budget is because they didn't want to head into the midterms with one of two millstones around their collective necks: Raising taxes or cutting bloated government programs.  They kicked the can down the road so that this exact ideological showdown would come about, and so they could trot out the ever-popular rhetoric, such as "Grandma will be eating dog food if we make any changes to entitlement programs!" and "Republicans want seniors and children to die!"

Unfortunately, our entitlement programs have become the single largest purchase of votes in our country's history, and Democrats will leverage that advantage until the day our country defaults on our financial obligations.

Rougement

about 12 years ago

The argument that the dems are spending this country into the ground is bullshit. The pubs under Bush racked up this debt on pointless wars and through cutting taxes for the wealthy. That's just fact, spin it anyway you want but the numbers don't lie.

BeastOfBurden

about 12 years ago

Look at the numbers.  The President can't spend dime-fucking-one without Congressional approval.  When did the deficit spending ramp up?  Yeah, that's right ... 2007.  

And while we're on the topic, what of the entitlement programs?  They constitute a much, much larger percentage of the budget.  Of course, we can't cut or reform those programs.  Too many liberals don't get it ... we're going down the same path as half of Europe.  The problem with this system is, eventually you run out of other people's money.

I'll forgive you for saying that both of our wars are "pointless."  I guess it'd be a shame if we let the parties responsible for 9/11 continue their terrorist activities.

BeastOfBurden

about 12 years ago

And if you were paying attention, you'd know that the tax cuts averaged less than $140 billion per year, total.  Considering these cuts affected every tax bracket, you can hardly assert that it was just the wealthy that benefited, nor is it a large factor in the $1.5 trillion in deficit spending our current president and his party are proposing.

Rougement

about 12 years ago

"Look at the numbers. The President can't spend dime-fucking-one without Congressional approval. When did the deficit spending ramp up? Yeah, that's right ... 2007."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Looks like it ramps up when Repubs get elected, generally speaking. 

"And while we're on the topic, what of the entitlement programs? They constitute a much, much larger percentage of the budget. Of course, we can't cut or reform those programs. Too many liberals don't get it ... we're going down the same path as half of Europe. The problem with this system is, eventually you run out of other people's money."

So what you do is enact real healthcare reform. Single payer could save around $200 billion/year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All#Cost_analysis_of_the_bill

Per capita cost of healthcare in the US is $7290. In the UK it is $2992. Life expectancy in the UK is a year more than the US, there are slightly more doctors per person and infant mortality is way lower. Here's the kicker, healthcare cost as a % of GDP in the UK is 8.4%, here it is a massive 16%. Single payer wasn't even put on the table as the Repubs would never vote for it and insurance companies bought just enough Blue Dogs to make sure every Dem wouldn't back it either. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system

Also, "we're going down the same path as half of Europe" is a cheap shot. The world recession was brought about by a banking and housing crisis in this country. 

"I'll forgive you for saying that both of our wars are "pointless." I guess it'd be a shame if we let the parties responsible for 9/11 continue their terrorist activities."

Are you saying Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11? Do you advocate invading Pakistan next? Iraq and Afghanistan, so far, have cost over $1 trillion. Bin Laden is where? Seems like he won to me, he goaded us into fucking ourselves over and we're still doing it.

"And if you were paying attention, you'd know that the tax cuts averaged less than $140 billion per year, total. Considering these cuts affected every tax bracket, you can hardly assert that it was just the wealthy that benefited, nor is it a large factor in the $1.5 trillion in deficit spending our current president and his party are proposing."

"In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt," National debt currently stands at over $14 trillion. That's a big chunk. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts#Debate_over_continuation_of_cuts

Everybody who is able to help pay down the debt, should help. Those who are able to help more, should help more. 

Anyway, I'm done doing your research for you. Like I said, the numbers don't lie.

Claire

about 12 years ago

If corporations paid their fair share in taxes we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. As far as I am concerned, Tea Baggers are mostly middle-class people advocating against their own interests in favor of tax cheats like GE and B of A.

zra

about 12 years ago

It's the corporate welfare, stupid!

Claire

about 12 years ago

Zra, I do feel like a dumb schmuck when I read articles like this one.

Pay Your Taxes? These 10 Companies Didn't

BeastOfBurden

about 12 years ago

Corporations use tax loopholes the same way you write off your mortgage interest.  Please explain how GE and BofA are "tax cheats."  They're following the tax code to the letter of the law.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  Don't like the tax laws?  Change 'em.  

But I guaranfuckingtee you that Democrats are just as culpable in the expansion of tax loopholes as any other party.  Hell, GE CEO Jeffy Immelt is buddy-buddy with the Fraud-in-Chief and serving as the head of the President's Commission on Jobs and Competitiveness.  

Rouge, I'll make this quick, as I have to go do my part to stimulate the economy:

*Your clever Wiki link clearly shows that Democrat-controlled Congressional spending is at the root of increased deficit spending, GDP be damned.

*Single payer is a fucking train wreck.  We have Canadian parents bringing their kids to the United States so they have a chance to live.  You could also save billions by giving me $100 million a year to provide medical care to the masses ... that doesn't mean the care would be good.  Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are horrible indicators when taking into account the violence and drug use of the lower classes.  You might also note the massive deficit that the UK is currently running -- close to a third of its revenues.  Try again.

*Cheap shot? Truth hurts, don't it?  It was Clinton's deregulation of relationship between lenders and investment banks, coupled with reckless borrowing by Fannie/Freddie (much of it under the CRA) that precipitated the housing and banking crisis.

*You called both wars pointless, not me.  If you feel bin Laden should remain at large without our pursuit, well, that's your perspective.  Your fearless leader Obama has now led us into Libya.  I figured you would have used them as your "the next war" example instead of Pakistan.  But I assume you consider that to be a just war, right?

*I thought we were debating the current deficit and debt, not future deficits.  But, since we're on the topic: Just last year, the CBO predicted average deficits of $600 billion between now and 2020, bringing our total national debt to around $15 trillion.  This lofty prediction is based on a more than doubling of tax revenues between now and then, while expenditures only increase 50%.  Of course, these predictions have already been rendered moot due to the Obama Administration and Congressional Dems proposing a budget that is $200 billion larger than CBO estimates, resulting in a deficit $300 billion greater.

But here's the most fucked-up thing about it: You believe the tax cuts are causing the deficit spending.  It's the spending in the first place.  The government is spending money it doesn't have.  But I will give you some credit: You come right out and admit your socialistic tendencies.  "Those who are able to help more, should help more"?  Nice.  Clearly you don't believe that people have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Rougement

about 12 years ago

Please go back and supply non-partisan links to back up your assertions as I did. 

Until then, you're just another far right wing idiot, howling at the moon.

Jim

about 12 years ago

Nice job Beast. Too many of these whiny libs love to spew partisan rhetoric that has no truth behind their assertions, other than what they here from Oberman or the libby rags. The one and only point that can't get through their little pointy heads is that we are spending more than we have. Yo Red, how come you don't mention the 700+ Billion so-called stimulus? Or the omnibus fiscal-year 2009 appropriations bill? How about the Auto bailout? Cash for Clunkers (guffah!)? How about the INCREASE in defense spending (guffah again!). And the best of all, a multi-trillion dollar health debacle. The truth is that in compared to Bush's spending (this is what the libs like to use for a benchmark) Husssein is Bush's spending on steroids. The furthest possible outcome from what he actually promised in order to get elected. This has to infuriate the libs, as they put all of their chips on a losing hand. 

The second issue is Congress. Never before, since the creation of the Congressional budget process, has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money. Unbelievable, but true. 

For the record, the last budget from a Republican President AND a Republican Congress - FY-2007 (passed in 2006) - resulted in a $161 billion deficit at a time when unemployment was 4.6%.  That's what happened the last time the GOP was in control.

What happened when the Democrats took control in January 2007?  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a FY-2008 budget that had a $459 billion deficit - nearly three times the deficit in the immediately previous Republican-passed budget.  All before the financial forced this massive spending.

Even worse, the Democrats passed a FY-2009 budget with a staggering $1.42 TRILLION deficit. The FY-2010 budget approved by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama had an estimated $1.6 TRILLION deficit.

The deficit has increased from $161 billion in the last budget before Democrats took control of the Congress (FY 2007) to $1.42 trillion in the most recent fiscal year (FY 2009)—an increase of $1.26 trillion or 782%.

Consider that according to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the United States faces an unfunded liability of $200 plus TRILLION dollars.

Face the facts redman. Your boy is addicted to the public trough and can't get his snout away from it. He's going to drive this country to bankruptcy if we don't do something immediately, like cutting TRILLIONS in spending. 

If you continue to vote Democratic, you are voting for the intentional collapse of our nations economy and fucking up any chance that our children will have to live in a world of opportunity and financial independence. Carry that on your back next time you walk to the polls and toe your party line.

BeastOfBurden

about 12 years ago

Rouge, I figured you to be an intelligent human being insofar as being able to utilize Google.  Since you've proven yourself incapable, I'll give you my sources--just this once--to prove what I've said:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/25332

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/pdf/2008/autumnforecasts/uk_en.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/01-26-Outlook.pdf

Enjoy the reading, Slappy.

Leave a Comment

Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
Read previous post:
Spring at Hartley!

Heard the song sparrows this morning-SPRING is HERE! Young people (ages 2-5) and their parents are invited to join us...

Close