That’s what’s unprecedented:
Obama would like the public to think he can’t negotiate and that to do so would be unheard of. But in this, as in so many other things, he’s lying. What is actually going on here is that, in the past, presidents who have had to deal with divided government (as Obama is; the House is in Republican hands) have always known that in such a situation they must negotiate. Whichever party they have been affiliated with, and whether you think they were good presidents or bad ones, they have kept faith with the basic gentleman’s/woman’s agreement on which our government has always run, and that is that if the other side was duly elected to be in control of another branch of government, that group has some legitimate power and must be negotiated with.
Obama is different. He had the brilliant idea that, although Republicans are in control of the House right now, they have no power unless they agree with him, and it is okay for him to defy them because it will have no repercussions on either him or his party (which is largely aligned with him). Therefore he can Just Say No to whatever Republican demands might be, and blame them for the failure to come to any sort of agreement. And the reason he is able to get away with this is a simple one: he knows the media will not call him on it, but will instead support him and amplify his message.
It’s a toxic combination, and that’s what’s “unprecedented”—at least in this country.
He’s a pretty toxic president.
Because the Lib-dem-socialist-marxist obstructionists continually lie about and distort events, here is a list of all the bills passed by the House – all but one ignored by the Senate who took up and Obama signed is the Pay Our Military Act,. This list is courtesy of Boehner’s office:
SEPTEMBER 20, 2013
Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59): keeps the government running at current spending levels and strengthens our economy by defunding the president’ health care law. (Passed in the House 230-189)
SEPTEMBER 28, 2013
Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59): keeps the government running at current spending levels and strengthens our economy by delaying the president’s health care law by one year, and permanently repealing ObamaCare’s tax on pacemakers and children’s hearing aids. (Amendment #1 Passed 248-174 | Amendment #2 Passed 231-192)
Pay Our Military Act (H.R. 3210): ensures our troops would be paid in the event of a government shutdown. (Passed in the House 423-0)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59): keeps the government running at current spending levels; ensures there’s no special treatment for Congress under the president’s health care law; and delays ObamaCare’s individual mandate, providing all Americans with the same relief the president has given big businesses. (Passed in the House 228-201)
Continuing resolution (H. Res. 368): insists on plan to fund the government running at current spending levels; ensure there’s no special treatment for Congress under the president’s health care law; delays ObamaCare’s individual mandate, providing all Americans with the same relief the president has given big businesses; and requests a formal House-Senate conference to resolve differences. (Passed in the House 228-199)
OCTOBER 2, 2013
Provide Local Funding for the District of Columbia Act (H.J. Res. 71): allows our nation’s capital to continue operating using its own funding. (Passed in the House by voice vote).
Open Our Nation’s Parks and Museums Act (H.J. Res. 70): opens all of our national parks and museums, including the WWII Memorial in Washington, DC that was initially closed to veterans by the administration. (Passed in the House 252-173)
Research for Lifesaving Cures Act (H.J. Res. 73): provides funding for the National Institute of Health, which is responsible for lifesaving medical innovations and cancer research. Click here to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) comments about this effort. (Passed in the House 254-171)
OCTOBER 3, 2013
Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (H.R. 3230): ensures the government shutdown doesn’t affect pay for our National Guard and Reserve. (Passed in the House 265-160)
– See more at:
Honoring Our Promise to America’s Veterans Act (H.J. Res. 72): provides immediate funding for critical veterans benefits and services, including disability claims, education and training, and more. (Passed in the House 259-157)
OCTOBER 4, 2013
National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Act (H.J. Res 85): provides immediate funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (Passed in the House 247-164)
Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act (H.J. Res. 75): provides immediate funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, which “serves nearly 9 million mothers and young children,” and provides “vital nutrition that poor families might otherwise be unable to afford.” (Passed in the House 244-164)
OCTOBER 5, 2013
Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act (H.R. 3223): provides for compensation of federal employees furloughed due to Senate Democrats’ government shutdown. This is similar to bipartisan legislation enacted during previous shutdowns. (Passed in the House 407-0)
OCTOBER 7, 2013
Food and Drug Safety Act (H.J.Res. 77): provides immediate funding for the Food and Drug Administration. (Passed in the House 235-162)
OCTOBER 8, 2013
Head Start for Low-Income Children Act (H.J.Res. 84): provides critical education funding to support Head Start programs across the country. (Passed in the House 248-168)
Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act (H.R. 3273): creates a bipartisan, bicameral working group charged with beginning negotiations, resolving the differences between the House and Senate, and helping re-open the government and address our debt. (Passed in the House 224-197)
Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act (H.J. Res. 89): ensures that federal employees who are still on the job during Democrats’ shutdown are paid on time. (Passed in the House 420-0)
The only piece of legislation the Senate took up and that Obama signed is the Pay Our Military Act, everything else has been rejected. “
here is a list of all the bills passed by the House – all but one ignored by the Senate
Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59)
Here’s the official summary of the major actions taken on H.J. Res 59. Note what happened on September 27:
9/27/2013 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 54 – 44. Record Vote Number: 209.
Boehner can end the shutdown today by allowing a vote on H.J. Res 59 as amended by the Senate.
Open Our Nation’s Parks and Museums Act (H.J. Res. 70):
Yes, the House has been posturing by passing bills funding small slices of the government, one at a time. It’s been estimated that at their current pace it could take months to re-open the government this way. It’s a ridiculous approach when one vote on H.J. Rs 59 would end the shutdown today.
The only piece of legislation the Senate took up and that Obama signed is the Pay Our Military Act, everything else has been rejected.
Simply untrue — check the record. The bill that would re-open the entire government has been amended and sent back to the House, where it has yet to receive a vote.
From CBS News:
Mr. Obama said he’s willing to negotiate with Republicans over anything, but only after they allow Congress to re-open the government and raise the debt limit to end the threat of default. Even if Congress only managed to re-open the government for another six-weeks, Mr. Obama said he’d “absolutely” be willing to negotiate after that.
“I will not eliminate any topic of conversation, and I’ve shown myself willing to engage all the parties involved, any leader on the issue,” Mr. Obama said from the White House press briefing room. “The only thing I will say is that we’re not going to pay a ransom for America paying its bills. That’s something that should be non-negotiable.”
In other words, “Give me everything I demand and then we’ll talk about what else you can cave on.”
The things he is “demanding” — funding the government and avoiding a catastrophic default — aren’t favors to Obama. They are things that both sides agree must happen.
Jim, you’re so stupid you don’t even realize there can’t legally be a default.
Default can happen whether it’s legal or not. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and Treasury stops borrowing (in order to observe the debt ceiling), then there will be more payments due than money to pay them. Some payments won’t be made, and there’s no way to ensure that all bond interest payments are made. That will constitute default.
Jim, Federal law states what has to happen. To wit, debt service must come first. If you’re talking about not paying the debt (the numbers I’ve seen are roughly: debt service is $2B/day out of a spending level of $16.7B/day, and Federal income is roughly $14B/day.) That means we can stop spending more than $14B/day. The first $2B of that must be debt service; after that, there have to be some decisions made as to what gets paid first.
For there to be a default, President Stompy Foot and the Dems have to affirmatively decide to not pay debt service. Are you advocating the President should break the law?
have to affirmatively decide to not pay debt service
Not according to the Treasury Dept., which operates the systems in question. They say that there’s no way to pick and choose which bills to pay. If there isn’t enough money, some bills won’t get paid, and we won’t know ahead of times which ones they are.
And even if we could change the systems to give priority to debt service (a doubtful proposition, given the time frame), we’d still be breaking the law. All of Treasury’s payments are mandated by law, not just the debt service ones.
That means we can stop spending more than $14B/day.
No, that $14B/day is ordered by law, just like the debt service payments.
Are you advocating the President should break the law?
No, but if the debt ceiling isn’t raised he will have no choice but to break some law. Either he’ll violate the ceiling, or he won’t make some legally required payments. There’s no law-abiding alternative to raising the ceiling.
Jimbo, the idea that they can’t prioritize payments is ridiculous. You expect me to believe there’s no way to manually say “this comes first?” I will laugh in your face.
Here, let me suggest something your brain may be to addled to think of: change the due dates on bills that aren’t debt service.
The idea that the government legally can’t pick and choose what order to pay things in is so preposterous I’m not even going to waste breath arguing.
You expect me to believe there’s no way to manually say “this comes first?”
There’s nothing manual about the process — millions of payments are made every day, so it’s completely automated. The system is set up to make payments in a first come, first served fashion. There’s no provision for shunting low-priority payments off into a pile somewhere so that there will be money left when the high-priority payments come down the pike later.
change the due dates on bills that aren’t debt service
Okay, here’s a random federal payment, one out of millions, for something other than debt service (a soldier’s salary, a food stamp benefit, a Social Security check, the electric bill for a VA hospital, a surgeon’s Medicare check, etc.). It’s currently due October 17; when would you make it due?
You’d never know it from watching the MSM, but Obama’s approval rating is tanking, not just that of Congress. From the Associated Press-GfK poll:
The poll found that the tea party is more than a gang of malcontents in the political landscape, as its supporters in Congress have been portrayed by Democrats. Rather, it’s a sizable — and divisive — force among Republicans. More than 4 in 10 Republicans identified with the tea party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff over reopening government and avoiding a default of the nation’s debt in coming weeks.
Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it. Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent.
Indeed, anyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for his or her trouble, whether it’s Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, or Republican John Boehner, the House speaker, both with a favorability rating of 18 percent.
Congress does not equal Republicans. Half of Congress (Senate) is controlled by the Democrats.
Isn’t the AP part of the MSM?
62 percent mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown
Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country
Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown; 63 percent say Republicans aren’t doing enough to cooperate with him
With dropping approval for the occupier of the white house, how soon until we see impeachment?
Congress’s approval rating is falling faster than Obama’s. Nothing would help Obama’s political standing more than having this Congress impeach him.
The beauty is that approval for all of them is falling at an accelerating rate. While that’s not particularly good for the Republicans, the Democrats depend far more on state love than at least substantial portions of the GOP voter base.
Of course, as I say below, the real winners here are the more libertarian-minded.
For libertarians, this is a beautiful thing. Even if the Republicans “lose” this battle, government as a whole is taking a beating in the minds of many, even some on the left. A good result, if you ask me.
Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country
That doesn’t sound like good news for libertarians.
I said libertarians, not anarchists. Even a minarchist might be uncomfortable with some aspects of a partial shutdown.
Leftists don’t know the difference. Harry Reid certainly doesn’t.
Obama will never run for office again.
He’s a lameduck.
What does he care?
Of course, there’s the fact that the Senate passed a budget in March of this year. The House refused to name members for the conference committee. We could have had a budget months ago if the House was operating in good faith, following “regular order” and “the rule of law.”
What’s the matter, Chris? The “pass the clean CR” meme not working for you any more?
Pass a clean CR is still fine.
My point remains – the House has had since March to negotiate with the Senate on a budget. They have refused to even appoint negotiators. That’s the very definition of intransigence.
Which house are such things supposed to originate, anyway?
The House and the Senate passed bills in March, as per the ‘fiscal cliff’ agreement of last year. They can legally take either bill as a basis for negotiations (or, when negotiations start, scrap both bills), agree on something, and pass it. If the final agreed-on version “originated” in the Senate, then the House cuts-and-pastes it into a House bill, thus “originating” it, and passes it.
None of this will happen if the House refuses to even name negotiators. Since the House refused to name negotiators, we are now in crisis in which the quickest way out is to pass a clean CR.
As I type this, the final movment of Saint-Saens’ Symphony 3 (aka “the music from BABE”) is playing in the background; so all I can think about the current state of affairs in Washington is:
“That’ll do, statist pigs . . . that’ll do.”
that’s what’s “unprecedented”
No, what’s unprecedented (before 2011) is one house of Congress holding the debt ceiling hostage in exchange for legislative concessions. If you disagree, find another example of a time when the party controlling just the House or just the Senate refused to lift the debt ceiling unless the other house, and the president, agreed to its legislative demands. It never happened until 2011, it’s happening right now, and if Obama gives in it will happen again and again in the future. It has to be stopped.
Stopped how? What are you suggesting? If the House wants to, it can continue to refuse to fund the ACA and anything else it likes indefinitely. The Senate and president have no constitutional power to stop it, and only the law allowing for the funding of “essential” services provides for any funding at all.
Leaving aside whether the House is handling this correctly (ditto for the Senate and the president), this is entirely within the House’s right and power. Refusing to negotiate with the entity that holds almost all of the constitutional cards isn’t a smart strategy, as it’s obvious that people in general aren’t just blaming the Republicans–they’re getting frustrated with all of the above.
Stopped how? What are you suggesting?
Not making concessions under threat of a debt ceiling breach. It’s paying ransom, which only encourages future hostage-taking.
If the House wants to, it can continue to refuse to fund the ACA and anything else it likes indefinitely
No, the ACA (like Social Security, Medicare, etc.) is funded by a permanent appropriation. To change that requires actually passing a bill (House + Senate + President or veto override). Why isn’t this more widely known on the right?
it’s obvious that people in general aren’t just blaming the Republicans
They’re blaming Republicans the most; the GOP has never had a lower approval rating.
I see no reason for us to adopt the irrationality, dishonesty, or venality of politicians. They’re up there in large part to negotiate and to compromise. Not even discussing all of this is rather juvenile, and that goes for both sides.
Everyone knew that a showdown was coming with the debt ceiling, but it was almost ignored for months. By both parties except for brief moments where they’d try to score cheap political points.
Also, a CR is of very questionable legality in the first place. Budgets should and need to be passed in the traditional manner. And I don’t get at all why we keep having to increase spending. Seriously, even from the left, there’s nothing that can be cut? Really?
I don’t get at all why we keep having to increase spending.
The CR funding level that both sides have agreed on is less than what we spent in 2010. This crisis isn’t about spending levels.
So you think that what we spent in 2007, when Senator ObamAA+ was decrying raising the debt ceiling, is just undoable now? Or even 2007 levels adusted for inflation? How about we don’t treat TARP and the stimulus as baseline budgets? Is that too much for you?
If you think the spending levels in H.J.R. 59 are too high, complain to the Republicans — they picked the number.
This crisis is not about spending levels.
You’re even more full of it than ever. Congress as a matter of routine uses the debt ceiling as a negotiating point. One of the most widely know was the Graham Rudman Act in 1985. Of course, the idea of actually not running up so much debt (over $6 trillion in less than 5 years) never seems to enter the mind of Obama and other leftists.
Parts of the Graham-Rudman Act were ruled unconstitutional (per the attached link).
More importantly, for ANY budget bill to pass, BOTH Houses have to agree. What you are arguing is that the House has the unilateral power over the budget. That’s a feature of parliamentary democracies, in which one house is vastly more powerful than the other, and that was clearly not the intention of the Constitution.
Yes, both sides of Congress have to agree to pass any legislation. In this, the House is the equal of the Senate. The House has offered compromises but the Senate has refused. Obama himself has said that once the House gives him everything he wants, he’s willing to talk. Sorry, but negotiations don’t work that way. No one gets everything they want nor should they expect to. The House Republicans will have to make concessions but so will the Senate and Obama. That isn’t holding anyone hostage. That’s how the Constitution established the government.
No one gets everything they want nor should they expect to.
One of the many disingenuous things that Obama said yesterday was about how the Republicans can’t have a hundred percent of what they want. Leaving aside that he wants to give them zero percent, even if he’d gone along with defunding ObamaCare, or even repealing it, that would still be a long way from a hundred percent of what they want, which would be major entitlement reform, tax reform, elimination of several departments, etc.
The House Republicans will have to make concessions
What concessions? None have been asked for, and none have been offered. Funding the government (at GOP-chosen levels) and avoiding a debt ceiling breach are not concessions to the Democrats.
That isn’t holding anyone hostage
The GOP position is: do what we want, or the government will shut down, and we’ll breach the debt ceiling. It’s pure extortion.
about how the Republicans can’t have a hundred percent of what they want
The Republicans are asking for 100% of the concessions, 100% of the bargaining chips on the table.
Graham-Rudman-Hollings was a bipartisan bill. Its passage was not secured by a threat to blow through the debt ceiling.
One question to Chris and Jim:
Why wouldn’t the Senate and President Obama agree to HR 59 as passed by the House?
It fully funds the Government – INCLUDING ObamaCare – and simply mandates that the (1) politicians who passed the law live by it and (2) that individual people are granted the same 1 year delay as Obama gave to businesses.
This gives them passage to fund their law and helps the ‘regular folks’.
It fully funds the Government – INCLUDING ObamaCare
It funds the government at a level chosen by the GOP — that’s a GOP win, not a present to the Democrats. It doesn’t fund Obamacare, because Obamacare is funded by a permanent appropriation. Again, why isn’t this simple fact known on the right?
(1) politicians who passed the law live by it
No, it doesn’t. They’re already living by it. All that amendment does is cut Congressional and staff compensation by yanking their employee health benefits. Obamacare doesn’t do that to people working for anyone else, and there’s no reason to single them out.
(2) that individual people are granted the same 1 year delay as Obama gave to businesses
Delaying the employer mandate is no big deal — it affects less than 1% of employers. Delaying the individual mandate is a huge deal — it affects 15% of Americans. Without it, there’ll be 11 million fewer people with health insurance. The Democrats are right to oppose such a delay.
These are items that the Republicans want, and Democrats don’t. The only way the Republicans are going to get these sorts of concessions is by offering concessions — things Democrats want and Republicans don’t — in return. But none have been offered, or even suggested. The Republican position isn’t negotiation: give me this and I’ll give you that. It’s extortion: give me this or else.
Delaying the employer mandate is no big deal — it affects less than 1% of employers.
So, Obama is for the 1% now? I thought he was for the 99%.
It is illegal to delay the mandate for any number of businesses greater than 0.
Please explain the legality of Obama’s unilateral ability to delay it for anybody.
Enforcing the employer mandate involves the Treasury Dept. collecting a bunch of information so they can determine what a company’s obligations are. Treasury says their systems for doing so won’t be ready for 2014, so the mandate is delayed until 2015. This sort of technical delay is routine.
No, it doesn’t. They’re already living by it. All that amendment does is cut Congressional and staff compensation by yanking their employee health benefits. Obamacare doesn’t do that to people working for anyone else, and there’s no reason to single them out.
Jim, you couldn’t be more wrong. Congress and the President are given special treatment under the law (see: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/mccaul-congress-should-learn-to-live-with-obamacar/nbF5r/). They didn’t get their care yanked, they are just now given ObamaCare with their employer (Congress – read: Taxpayers) paying a large portion of their premium.
Delaying the employer mandate is no big deal — it affects less than 1% of employers. Delaying the individual mandate is a huge deal — it affects 15% of Americans. Without it, there’ll be 11 million fewer people with health insurance. The Democrats are right to oppose such a delay.
First, if it isn’t a “Big Deal”, then why are the Democrats in the Senate and the President against it? The Delay to the Individual doesn’t mean they can’t get coverage, it just means they don’t HAVE to sign up for coverage. Big difference.
Amazing how you just twist the facts to try to justify your position when the facts are so much against it.
Jim, you couldn’t be more wrong
You are very confused.
Congress and the President are given special treatment under the law
The only “special treatment” they get is that they are required to buy insurance on the exchanges, rather than through the normal federal employee benefits system. Nobody else who gets insurance from their employer has to do that. That isn’t special treatment, it’s a special burden (though not a particularly onerous one).
They didn’t get their care yanked
Right, it’s the House-passed Vitter amendment that would yank their health benefits (if the Senate and Obama agreed, which is unlikely).
with their employer paying a large portion of their premium
That’s was the case before Obamacare, and is the case under Obamacare, whether you work for a Congressman or a governor or IBM. Obamacare does not ban employer-paid health benefits. But the Vitter amendment would single out Congress members and staff and take away their employer-paid health benefits. It wouldn’t do that to anybody else.
First, if it isn’t a “Big Deal”, then why are the Democrats in the Senate and the President against it?
Look at what I wrote again. I wrote that delaying the individual mandate is a huge deal! That’s why the Democrats are opposed — it would make a huge difference, for the worse.
The Delay to the Individual doesn’t mean they can’t get coverage, it just means they don’t HAVE to sign up for coverage
The CBO estimates that without the individual mandate 11 million fewer people would get insurance in 2014. That’s huge.
Tom,
Given that the “regular folks” are the targets of the pain the administration is inflicting, what makes you think they care at all about the regular folks?
Gregg,
I understand completely and agree 100% with you.
I just wanted to see Jim/Chris try to defend this position. As I thought, Jim danced around it with half-truths and Democratic rhetoric.
Why should he? He is not running for office and so has nothing to lose.
On the other hand everyone in the House of Representatives is running next year and the voters will be looking to vent their anger. If President Obama is able to pin the pain on the Republicans he might end up with a Democratic Congress and maybe even a veto proof Senate.
So why should he negotiate when he has nothing to lose and everything to gain? The Tea Party has fallen right into his trap like the amateurs they are…
If the media actually did it’s job, Obama’s rating would be far worse than it currently is (37%).
More and more folks are seeing that ObamaCare is a piece of junk and are getting more upset the Administration is purposely making it harder on the residents of this country.
Tea Party has actually gotten the R’s into a pretty good negotiating place now. It just takes a few more outlets to deal with the truth.
More and more folks are seeing that ObamaCare is a piece of junk
According to Rasmussen, the GOP’s favorite pollster, Obamacare’s favorability spread has improved by 6 points since the shutdown (and the opening of the exchanges).
purposely making it harder on the residents of this country
It’s made it easier for me, and millions more, to get affordable health insurance.