Government Shutdown Now Seems Inevitable

There are still three days left, but it's looking less and less likely that a budget deal will be reached in time to avoid a government shutdown.

Negotiations are still ongoing, but reports out of the budget negotiations this morning are not encouraging. The Washington Post is reporting that the White House is moving forward with the planning for a Friday shutdown:

The process of shutting down the federal government is underway.

With the clock ticking towards Friday’s federal budget deadline and President Obama hosting congressional leaders for budget talks at the White House on Tuesday, top administration officials have instructed agency officials to begin sharing details of shutdown contingency plans with top managers. This marks the next step toward both curtailing government operations if a budget impasse occurs and informing federal workers whether they are considered “essential” personnel who would stay on the job despite a shutdown.

Though Obama and congressional leaders remain committed to avoiding a shutdown, “given the realities of the calendar, good management requires that we continue contingency planning for an orderly shutdown should the negotiations not be completed by” Friday at midnight, Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Jeffrey Zients said in a memo. The message was sent to the government’s deputy secretaries and chiefs of staff, who handle day-to-day management issues for agencies and departments.

House Republicans are preparing their own shutdown plans:

Republican leaders are preparing the House for a government shutdown, as they plan to distribute a pamphlet about the mechanics of a partial congressional work-stoppage to all lawmakers’ offices Tuesday morning, according to several senior House aides.

It’s the strongest signal yet that House Speaker John Boehner believes the White House and Congress could fail to strike a deal on a long-term funding bill before the government’s authority to spend money runs out on Friday. Talks came to a standstill Monday, amid amplified partisan recriminations.

To illustrate just how tense the situation has become, Boehner (R-Ohio) did not initially commit to a meeting President Barack Obama plans to host at the White House on Tuesday — the same day House Republicans plan to release their entitlement-slashing budget plan for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Boehner’s office confirmed late Monday that he will attend but arrive after it starts.

With that as a backdrop, House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) has been tasked with compiling and distributing the pamphlet. It is designed to give guidance on which employees are considered essential and which are not allowed to work during a shutdown, advise congressional staff about the status of their benefits during a shutdown and outline which House services will continue to operate.

Democrats pounced on the news.

“The Republican leadership is preparing for a shutdown. Instead of coming to the table to work with Democrats and the White House, who have offered $33 billion in cuts, Speaker Boehner is taking his marching orders from the Tea Party, who want to ‘cut it or shut it,'” said a House Democratic leadership aide.

The other way to look at both these stories, of course, is that planning of this type is necessary even if negotiations are going to continue simply because everyone needs to be prepared for the possibility of a shutdown on Friday. It doesn’t necessarily mean a deal won’t be made, but when you combine it with other developments it seems to suggest that both sides now recognize that a deal won’t be made in time.

For example, there’s the news that the GOP caucus seems to be looking forward to a shutdown:

House Republicans huddled late Monday and, according to a GOP aide, gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparing for a possible shutdown. That process includes alerting lawmakers and senior staff about which employees would not report to work if no agreement is reached.

At the same time, though, and in apparent recognition of the fact that a final deal is still far off, House Republicans are offering another Continuing Resolution to allow negotiations to continue:

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers today introduced another temporary funding measure – known as a Continuing Resolution (CR) – to prevent a government shutdown for an additional week while cutting a total of $12 billion in discretionary spending. The measure also includes funding for the Department of Defense for the remainder of the current fiscal year. …

“We cannot let the unruly actions of one person cause a government-wide shutdown and unravel the efforts House Republicans have made to significantly reduce spending and rein in our historic deficits. Therefore, I am introducing a short-term continuing resolution today to keep the government open for another week. This bill will cut $12 billion to help chip away at ballooning budgets, and includes responsible funding for our national defense for the rest of the fiscal year.

“This bill is not the preferable way to go forward, and I would greatly prefer to come to a final agreement with the Senate to put this long-overdue budget work behind us. However, we must maintain critical programs and services for the American people and protect our nation’s financial future. This legislation give us this option, while exacting a price for Leader Reid’s delays and allowing time to finally begin honest negotiations.”

The White House, however, is apparently rejecting this plan:

WASHINGTON — Congressional GOP leaders said on Tuesday that the Obama administration has informed them that it will oppose a last-ditch stopgap funding measure proposed by House Republicans to keep the government running for an additional week.

The Obama administration would neither confirm nor deny the reports. “That is getting ahead of the process,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said, when asked about a one-week continuing resolution. “We believe that we can reach an agreement on funding for the full year if we sit around the table with good faith efforts to approach this in a reasonable way.”

That said, on Tuesday morning, GOP lawmakers and aides from both parties on the Hill said that the administration had made its opposition to the measure clear.

“The White House has indicated now that they have already rejected that notion, which is raising the risk of government shutdown,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters. “We in the House have said consistently that we don’t want to shut government down, we just want to decrease spending.”

And, seemingly confirming it all, it appears that today’s meeting between President Obama and Congressional leadership failed to make any progress:

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that private talks with President Barack Obama failed to produce a deal to avoid a government shutdown and warned that the House Republicans “will not be put in a box” of accepting options they refuse to endorse.

Short of an agreement to cover the rest of the budget year, Boehner said House Republicans want a stopgap bill that would keep the government running for one more week and slash another $12 billion in spending. The White House has shown no interest in that approach.

Friday is the deadline to avoid a shutdown. Boehner’s account of the meeting between Obama and top lawmakers of both parties, released in a statement from his office, did nothing to suggest the White House and Congress were closer to reaching a deal.

There’s still time to make a deal, of course, or agree to another CR, but the parties’ positions have hardened to the point where that doesn’t seem likely before Friday. So, we’re probably headed for the first government shutdown in fifteen years. The last time that happened, it led to a political rebound for President Clinton and the beginnings of a Presidential sex scandal that led to impeachment. This time, what happens is anybody’s guess.

 

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Congress, Deficit and Debt, Politicians, Tea Party, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Hello World! says:

    Well, this will be the beginning of the end for the republicans. Boehners lack of leadership has put him in a tight spot.

  2. Jay Tea says:

    Here’s the fundamental reason why we have a budget crisis now: because we don’t have a federal budget for this fiscal year.

    More specifically, because DEMOCRAT Barack Obama never submitted a budget to Congress, DEMOCRAT Speaker Pelosi never passed a budget, and DEMOCRAT Senate Marjority Leader Harry Reid never pushed the House to submit a budget to the Senate for approval.

    Toss in DEMOCRAT Joe Biden, if you like, in his Constitutional role as President of the Senate.

    If those DEMOCRATS had done what has to be one of the most fundamental duties of a government, then we wouldn’t be in the jam we are today.

    J.

  3. Wiley Stoner says:

    You idea of lack of leadership is laughable. The house passed a budget bill. The previous congress, the one lead by democrats did not. This should have been taken care of last year. Seems the donks don’t want to be held responsible for out of control spending. Don’t tell me about Bush. He never had a deficit of 1.6 Trillion for one year. Obama is trying to spend us into the poor house so he and his cronies can come to the rescue. I guess the donks did not learn from the last election and think the American people will blame the GOP for the donkls not passing a budget. Just shows their twisted thinking. They are practically guaranteeing a GOP majority in both houses in 2012. Go for it.l

  4. Jay Tea,

    The facts you recite may be true but they aren’t relevant in the face of the fact that Democrats control the Senate and the White House. The House GOP cannot reasonably expect to get everything it wants under these circumstances.

  5. macandsandy says:

    Please make sure congress is shut down also and that the republicons get no $$$ and no medical insurance either –

    See how long it will take them to whine with out $$$ and insurance.

  6. mantis says:

    Uh oh, Jay’s breaking out the all caps and Rushbo vernacular. Must be freaking out big time.

    More specifically, because DEMOCRAT Barack Obama never submitted a budget to Congress,

    Liar. He did so over a year ago.

    and DEMOCRAT Senate Marjority Leader Harry Reid never pushed the House to submit a budget to the Senate for approval.

    Now it’s the Senate’s job to get the House to act? Interesting.

    It’s cute that you want to carry the Republicans’ water as they attempt to cut taxes on the rich, raise them on everyone else, and destroy Medicare, but if you’re going to toss around easily disproven lies, you’re going to get called on it. And you can’t just delete the comments here like you can at your swamp.

  7. Abdul Khan says:

    What are those animals that will run off cliffs in huge numbers?
    Kinda wonder if they have intractable arguments, but I guess it doesn’t really matter in the end, does it?

  8. Wiley Stoner says:

    Mantis is wrapped in his communist red again. In a free society, you are not entitled to the wealth of others. What Mantis suggest is theft by proxy. If he want to donate to those programs he likes, let him. To use tax payer dollars to buy votes for the donks should be illegal. Entitlement programs buy votes. Who pays for those votes? Those who pay taxes. Problem is, we don’t have in revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Donks cannot get their simple minds around that idea, that is because they are owned by the unions and special interest. I spell that George Soros. Mantis, did you notice the last election? The one where the democrats lost the majority in the house and seats in the Senate. You go ahead and play chicken with that force that caused the reversal of your fortune.

  9. Wiley Stoner says:

    Mantis you were kicked off Wizbang because of the lies you clung to not because of your completely faulty arguement. Dude, you have no grasp of the truth. All one has to do to find that out is to google Mantis.

  10. Well, if that’s the only way to address the spending madness, then so be it.

  11. EJ says:

    “carry the Republicans’ water as they attempt to cut taxes on the rich, raise them on everyone else”

    Once again, citation needed. Where does this come from?

  12. EJ says:

    “The one where the democrats lost the majority in the house and seats in the Senate. You go ahead and play chicken with that force that caused the reversal of your fortune.”

    I’d be careful though wiley. Just as the democrats minterpretted their 2006 and 2008 elections fortunes as the country loving democrats again, the republicans would be making a big mistake if they thing voters love them. 2010 was about rejecting democrats, not loving republicans. Republicans can very well over reach now just as the dems did two years ago and hand the house right back to them.

  13. mantis says:

    Once again, citation needed. Where does this come from?

    Analysis of Ryan’s roadmap from Citizens for Tax Justice

    Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, has put forward a detailed budget plan that he claims will balance the budget over several decades. If the extensive tax proposals in his plan were fully in effect in 2011:

    ƒ The federal government would collect $183 billion less in 2011 and more than $2 trillion less over a decade than it would if Congress adopted President Obama’s tax proposals.

    ƒ Federal taxes would be lower for the richest ten percent, and higher for all other income groups, than they would be if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

    ƒ The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would pay about $1,700 more, on average, than they would if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

    ƒ The richest one percent would pay about $211,300 less on average than they would if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

    ƒ The poorest 20 percent would pay 12.3 percent of their income more than what they would pay under the President’s proposal, while the richest one percent would pay 15 percent of their income less than they would pay under the President’s proposal.

  14. mantis says:

    I’ll try that link again:

    ctj.org/pdf/ryanplan2010.pdf

  15. Wiley Stoner says:

    EJ, the messaging is important. During the Clinton era, Bill got ahead of the curve in blaming the GOP for a government shutdown. Besides Slick Willy was a better politician than B.H.O. Clinton said he felt our pain. Obama is causing our pain. He is about to find out we, the American people can see the king has no clothes. I do not think it is the duty of the House GOP to make a deal. If the donks wanted a deal they should have made it when they held the majority it the house. Pelosi played a game and lost. As Obama has said on many inappropriate occasions, elections have consequences. Besides if the government is shut down, it is not spending money. That is a good thing. There was a time when the government shut down every summer.

  16. Wiley Stoner says:

    Mantis, you need to have your rectum checked. You keep pulling things out of it and trying to apply them here.

  17. Jay Tea says:

    The facts you recite may be true but they aren’t relevant in the face of the fact that Democrats control the Senate and the White House. The House GOP cannot reasonably expect to get everything it wants under these circumstances.

    I think they’re very relevant.

    mantis: thank you for the correction on Obama submitting a budget. Pity he never followed through on it, but then he’s only known for his followthrough on the links. And Reid could have put pressure on Pelosi, but didn’t.

    Thanks for acknowledging that it was the Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who completely failed on this one. Well, her and her “leadership team” that did squat.

    As far as mantis and Wizbang go, let’s clarify a few details here that are being misstated:

    1) mantis was never banned from Wizbang, his departure was entirely of his choice.

    2) Yes, I do possess the power to delete or edit comments there. But I only do so under the most extreme circumstances, never lightly, and I don’t recall ever doing anything at all to any of mantis’ comments. And “it embarrasses me” has NEVER been a reason for me to delete a comment. Jay don’t play dat way. Jay routinely expresses comments for htose dat do play dat way.

    Now I have a correction to publish, thanks to mantis…

    J.

  18. Jay Tea says:

    … and said correction is now posted, along with a specific thank-you to mantis.

    J.

  19. EJ says:

    mantis… first off is this marginal rates or actual taxes? The plan wants to limit revenues to no higher than 20% of GDP. So in the out years it is possible that overallt his is a tax cut relative to the baseline which automatically grows every year because of bracket creap.

    second, this is a comparison to Obama’s proposal which raises taxes on the top x percent. All this says is Obama iwants to raisw taxes, not that Ryan is neccesarily calling for cutting taxes. So this in itself means nothing.

    wiley,

    I’m not so sure that dislike of obama on average is any higher than dislike for the republicans. And if the goverment is actually shut down for a signifigant period, there will be negative consiquences because some of what the federal government does is actually important.

  20. Steve Verdon says:

    mantis,

    That comparison is a year old. It doesn’t compare Ryan’s plan to current law nor is it even clear that Ryan’s plan from a year ago is a fair representation of his current plan.

  21. mantis says:

    The plan wants to limit revenues to no higher than 20% of GDP. So in the out years it is possible that overallt his is a tax cut relative to the baseline which automatically grows every year because of bracket creap.

    Yeah, that’s the most obviously ridiculous part of the budget. Which GDP? GDP is not a static figure, and is constantly adjusted. How do you budget for that?

    second, this is a comparison to Obama’s proposal which raises taxes on the top x percent. All this says is Obama iwants to raisw taxes, not that Ryan is neccesarily calling for cutting taxes.

    You don’t have to look at the comparison, if you don’t like, just the effect of the Ryan roadmap. It’s an effective tax increase for 90% of the population.

    That comparison is a year old. It doesn’t compare Ryan’s plan to current law nor is it even clear that Ryan’s plan from a year ago is a fair representation of his current plan.

    Well then Ryan should release the precise details, now shouldn’t he? Until he does, all we have is his roadmap, upon which his proposal is supposedly based.

    Until then, all we’re getting from Ryan is some maximum strength bullshit.

    Jon Bernstein is right to warn that the numbers in Paul Ryan’s budget look a little funny. For one thing, he’s assuming repealing the Affordable Care Act will save $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says keeping Affordable Care Act saves more than $200 billion over the same period. When asked to explain the discrepancy, Ryan said he was using CBO’s numbers, which is clearly untrue. So something is wrong there.

  22. Steve Verdon says:

    Well then Ryan should release the precise details, now shouldn’t he? Until he does, all we have is his roadmap, upon which his proposal is supposedly based.

    Agreed he should release it, but until then it is speculative to say it will result in tax increases/cuts. It is probably true, but given the rather complex system we have with all the targeted tax cuts it is not an easy question to answer. Also, the comparison should be to current law, not something that could have been but isn’t.

    The Congressional Budget Office says keeping Affordable Care Act saves more than $200 billion over the same period.

    Really? The CBO just revised their numbers and indicated ACA will cost more than initial thought.

  23. Wiley Stoner says:

    EJ, if Obama is so popular and his policies are among the most favorite in the history of the U.S., why do the Republicans hold the Majority in the House? If you poll donks you, you will get the results you speak of. Remember this is a center right country. Historically, Barack Hussein Obama, from the days of his birth has been radical left. A man is known by the friends he keeps. Bill Ayers is not a friend of America but he is Obama’s friend. What was Van Jones doing in government? He is surrounded by radicals.

  24. Hey Norm says:

    The republicans are going to shut down the government because they want to defund planned parenthood and they don’t believe that 100% of the peer reviewed science on climate change is right. You really can’t make up how unprepared to govern this party is.

  25. michael reynolds says:

    Well, at least it should be entertaining. Politics has gotten boring lately. And with TV in its American Idol-imposed hiatus, and nothing but crappy movies coming out, I’ve got nothing to do but work. I mean, sure, if there were new episodes of Modern Family or House and the Thor movie was out, then I’d be very upset by this kind of high level immaturity. But as it is, what the hell, let ‘er rip.

  26. An Interested Party says:

    Mantis you were kicked off Wizbang because of the lies you clung to not because of your completely faulty arguement.

    Didn’t ZR III harp on that same theme? An interesting tell as to the identity of Wiley Stoner…oh well, I guess that’s what people have to do when they get banned…

    I think they’re very relevant.

    Well, you are probably in the minority in that regard, especially since some of the “facts” you recited aren’t even factual…

  27. Hey Norm says:

    Let’s see…republicans given some power:
    Tax cuts for rich people – check
    Culture warfare – check
    Class warfare – check
    Shut down the government – check
    Impeachment proceedings – ???

  28. Simon says:

    We passed a budget. If the Democrats don’t accept it, the shutdown is on them. Our job is to win the air war: Making sure that the public correctly attributes blame where it’s due.

  29. Hey Norm says:

    That’s BS…republicans have been angling to shut down the government since before the November election. Now that you’ve got it you don’t have the balls to stand behind your actions. Pathetic.

  30. Jay Tea says:

    Interested, you might have missed it, but I thanked mantis for correcting me on the flawed part. It’s usually considered polite (and relevant, to use the word) to jump on someone’s error BEFORE they correct it, not after. That’s usually the hallmark of an asshole.

    You might also notice that I shot down Wiley’s misinformation vis-a-vis mantis and Wizbang. It might be one of the very few areas where mantis will agree with my presentation of facts.

    J.

  31. Eric Florack says:

    Simon’s got this one correct.
    And more… when the people notice that the world doesn’t end… what have the Democrats to use for leverage anymore?

  32. An Interested Party says:

    Impeachment proceedings – ???

    Oh, I’d love to know on what basis any Republican would bring forth such proceedings…

    If the Democrats don’t accept it, the shutdown is on them. Our job is to win the air war: Making sure that the public correctly attributes blame where it’s due.

    Oh, good luck with that…after all, it worked so very well the last time…

    That’s usually the hallmark of an asshole.

    Well, you certainly know a lot about that, as you confront that every time you look in a mirror…

    And more… when the people notice that the world doesn’t end… what have the Democrats to use for leverage anymore?

    Oh, but didn’t you know? The Dems will have their fellow travelers in the MSM to carry their water for them, blaming all of this on the GOP in general and teabaggers in particular…

  33. Simon says:

    An Interested Party says: “Impeachment proceedings – ??? Oh, I’d love to know on what basis any Republican would bring forth such proceedings…” Oh, easy. Same basis Kucinich raised. If you believe Obama went to war without getting a declaration of war and outside of the War Powers Act, and if you believe the WPA is valid, you have a basis for impeachment. I don’t believe either of those things, but a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) do.

    An Interested Party says: “Oh, good luck with that…after all, it worked so very well the last time.” Said Dan Rather to the bloggers criticizing him in 2004! “Last time” was fundamentally different. It was a pre-internet era. The media were still information gatekeepers and opinionmakers at that point. Even if the Democrats win this time, the battle will look nothing like 1995 and it’s naive to pretend otherwise.

  34. michael reynolds says:

    AIP:

    Oh, I’d love to know on what basis any Republican would bring forth such proceedings…

    On the grounds that he’s a negro.

  35. Richard Gardner says:

    This will get real entertaining around April 15 when the first government employee checks (EFTs actually) don’t arrive (to include the service members in Iraq and Afghanistan – nice political point too). But the big issue will be if this goes to the end of the month and on May 2 no federal pay, no social security and no military pensions. Interesting times when mortgage payments bounce. Who pays the late fees?.

  36. Jay Tea says:

    How fascinating. Interested is the first party to bring up the topic of impeachment, and then michael whips out his always-at-the-ready Race Card ™ (Don’t leave home without it!) to supplement it.

    And neither mentions that the first actual person in a position to start the impeachment process to breach the subject is that crazy, hateful, right-wing racist was Dennis Kucinich (D-Alpha Centauri).
    (Not counting the possible involvement of the reliably-loopy Ron Paul, who basically has a caucus of one.)

    Nice act you two bozos got going. You don’t actually even need any conservatives involved to try, convict, and hang them for “sins” that only occurred in your fevered little minds. How convenient. It’s the political equivalent of a circle-jerk.

    Please don’t tell us who won.

    I feel like paraphrasing the old saying: “they tried me in absentia, they convicted me in absentia, so let them execute me in absentia.”

    J.

  37. sam says:

    If anyone needed further proof that Simon is wrong, here it is:

    Eric Florack says:
    Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 21:56

    Simon’s got this one correct.

  38. An Interested Party says:

    How fascinating. Interested is the first party to bring up the topic of impeachment…

    Actually, I wasn’t the first person to bring up that topic…perhaps you should do a little more research before making false accusations…hmm, I’m noticing a trend here…

  39. Jay Tea says:

    You’re quite right, Interested (must be a novel experience for you). The original article did bring it up.

    But how quickly you and anjin were to smoke out Dennis Kucinich as a secret racist right-wing teabagger… man, that was impressive.

    The only thing that I can figure out is that the professional left is still butt-hurting over the Clinton impeachment, and want to rant and rave about it… but when it comes to manning up, you somehow misplace your balls. No Republican in Congress (with the possible exception, again, of Ron Paul) is talking about impeaching Obama, but Dennis Kucinich is — but since when did reality intrude on your little fantasies?

    It’s reminiscent of how the draft was handled during the Bush administration. Liberals ranted and raved about how Bush was going to reinstate it — while it was nefarious tax cheat Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who actually introduced a draft bill, to “redress” the alleged social and racial imbalances in the military. So a couple of Republicans decided to call his bluff, and put his bill up for a vote. It went down in flames, with even Rangel voting against it — while whining about the “dirty trick” of taking his bill and treating it (and him) like he was serious, when everyone knows that the windbag is nothing but bluster and BS and graft.

    So, back to the original point — anyone want to talk about how the current budget crisis is NOT because the Democrats, when they controlled both Houses and the presidency, utterly and completely failed to do one of the most fundamental duties of government? Anyone want to make any kind of case on how “Republican obstructionism” kept a budget from getting out of the House?

    Come on, anjin, interested, wr, mantis — ONE of you has to have gotten the talking points from the DNC and can spin that one.

    J.

  40. sam says:

    “So, back to the original point — anyone want to talk about how the current budget crisis is NOT because the Democrats, when they controlled both Houses and the presidency, utterly and completely failed to do one of the most fundamental duties of government”

    Uh, even if what you assert is true, so what? How much political traction do you really think that would get outside the GOP fever swamp? Do you seriously believe the electorate at large is going to draw the conclusion you wish? An electorate notorious for not paying attention until the shit hits the fan? Dude, even granting what you say — just to be neighborly — that is sooo ancient inside baseball. You may get the warm vindication fuzzies, but the Great Outside the Blogosphere? C’mon.

  41. Jay Tea says:

    So, sam, you’re saying that you don’t care why we don’t have a budget, which is the immediate and direct cause of the looming government shutdown?

    And yeah, I got one part wrong — which was promptly corrected, and I thanked mantis for correcting me. But the rest of it? Considering how eager he and others are to find my mistakes and proclaim them, you think they’d NOT bring up the House debating and passing a budget?

    Nancy Pelosi is still spouting her BS on the budget — and no one has the guts to ask her WHY she killed the entire budget process last year?

    Why aren’t ANY of the people so worked up about the budget situation and the shutdown pointing out how the House Democrats — aided and abetted by their fellow elected Democrats — engineered this whole thing last year, when they ran the House?

    Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats need to sit down and STFU. They had all of last year to do something, and they found tons of other things far more interesting and important. To steal a line, they had the wheel and they steered us into the ditch.

    Your answer? “I don’t believe you, and even if I did, I don’t care.”

    Thanks, Mr. Helpy-help. Got anything of SUBSTANCE to say?

    Thought not.

    J.

  42. sam says:

    “So, sam, you’re saying that you don’t care why we don’t have a budget, which is the immediate and direct cause of the looming government shutdown?”

    I’m saying, as much as it might hurt your fifis, that what you are arguing is, from the point of view of practical politics, irrelevant.

    “Thanks, Mr. Helpy-help. Got anything of SUBSTANCE to say?”

    You really thinking standing on soapbox in the cyberpark, with your fly open, screaming “The Dems did it! The Dems did it!” is substantive?

  43. wr says:

    Ye, Jay does think that.

  44. Jay Tea says:

    I think if you’re fighting a fire, you don’t ask for advice from the arsonist.

    (shrug) Your mileage may vary, of course.

    J.

  45. Scott says:

    Very disappointing, 45 comments and no mention of golfing.

  46. sam says:

    “Very disappointing, 45 comments and no mention of golfing.”

    The Masters starts tomorrow.

  47. Wayne says:

    Re “The House GOP cannot reasonably expect to get everything it wants under these circumstances”

    And the Democrats should. If they won’t agree to these small minor cuts now, how will they ever agree to the larger cuts needed to keep this country solvent.

    Why is it always the GOP that need to compromise and not the Democrats?

  48. Jay Tea says:

    Wayne, the Democrats didn’t have to compromise last year on the budget. They just up and decided we didn’t need one, so they didn’t pass one. They didn’t have to make a single compromise in that little deal.

    J.

  49. mantis says:

    Jay is correct about the House Democrats. With so many of them facing tough challenges in last year’s election, they chickened out and proposed nothing rather than provide campaign fodder to opponents. Obviously avoidance was not an effective tactic.

    In case you want to complain about the 2012 budget, Jay, the White House sent their proposal to Congress in February. I know these kinds of things can be tough to find…when you don’t bother looking.

    Also, do you know the difference between budget proposals and appropriations? Doesn’t seem like it.

  50. Scott says:

    “The Masters starts tomorrow.”

    That explains it. They’re holding that talking point in reserve, sensing an opportunity for greater impact in the near future.

  51. Jay Tea says:

    Jay is correct about the House Democrats. With so many of them facing tough challenges in last year’s election, they chickened out and proposed nothing rather than provide campaign fodder to opponents. Obviously avoidance was not an effective tactic.

    mantis misses the most important point: for political gain, the House Democrats deliberately chose to skip out on one of their most important duties as elected officials and stonewalled passing a budget.

    mantis focuses on the political price they paid, but doesn’t mention the colossal mess they left the nation in by doing so. Not that I’d accuse mantis of putting partisan interests above the good of the nation, like the last class of House Democrats, but that’s certainly what it looks like here.

    J.

  52. Wayne says:

    Jay I agree with you. What I was talking about is many of the posters including those who supposedly back the GOP or claim to be independent, seem to always state that the Republicans need to compromise while never mentioning the need for Democrats to do the same.

    Also isn’t it amazing that even when the Democrats had super majority and the Presidency that they blame the Republicans for their failures like not passing this year’s budget?

  53. Scott says:

    Jay, none of my business of course but it may not be in your best interest to bring up the subject of leaving the nation in a colossal mess.

  54. mantis says:

    mantis misses the most important point: for political gain, the House Democrats deliberately chose to skip out on one of their most important duties as elected officials and stonewalled passing a budget.

    How did I miss that point, exactly? I said they chickened out on the budget. Even if I agree with Jay, he will pretend I did the opposite. What a jackass.

    mantis focuses on the political price they paid, but doesn’t mention the colossal mess they left the nation in by doing so.

    Again, Jay ignores the difference between budgets and appropriations. He also does not describe the “colossal mess” not passing a budget last year caused.

    Not that I’d accuse mantis of putting partisan interests above the good of the nation, like the last class of House Democrats, but that’s certainly what it looks like here.

    How am I “putting partisan interests above the good of the nation,” jackass?

  55. An Interested Party says:

    Would anyone care to explain how, exactly, the “professional left” was “butt-hurt” over the Clinton impeachment?

    Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats need to sit down and STFU. They had all of last year to do something, and they found tons of other things far more interesting and important. To steal a line, they had the wheel and they steered us into the ditch.

    If they do that, they can join the GOP, which had complete control of government for quite a few years and did nothing to fix our fiscal mess…the idea that these problems are solely the fault of one party or the other is ridiculous…

  56. Jay Tea says:

    Interested, at least the GOP government passed a budget each year they held power. That used to be the norm — kind of like “show up for work wearing pants.”

    Now, it’s considered praise-worthy.

    mantis, what I meant was you condemned the Democrats’ failure… and then cited the political price they paid for it. Not a word about the other consequences for it… such as, say, this current debacle.

    The budget is supposed to be settled before the fiscal year. We’re halfway through it.

    Thanks again SO much, Speaker Pelosi and your henchcreatures and enablers.

    J.

  57. mantis says:

    Not a word about the other consequences for it… such as, say, this current debacle.

    The current “debacle” is entirely political. I notice you still haven’t spelled out what “colossal mess” was caused by not passing the budget. That’s why.

  58. Jay Tea says:

    Fair enough, mantis. “Looming colossal mess,” and the fact that this Congress has to deal with the current-year budget on top of all the other things it has to deal with — such as what the hell they have to say or do about our little Libyan adventure.

    Hmm… now that I think about it, a government that is largely shut down and too wrapped up in doing last year’s work to pass any new laws, raise new taxes…

    I think I just gave myself a boner.

    J.

  59. Jay Tea says:

    Note to self: do NOT come here and comment straight from Ace Of Spades’ site. The tone of that site tends to… linger, and I really should find a palate-cleanser before I go back to arguing maturely.

    J.

  60. mantis says:

    “Looming colossal mess,”

    What is the looming colossal mess that will result from not passing a budget?

    and the fact that this Congress has to deal with the current-year budget on top of all the other things it has to deal with

    They don’t actually have to, you know. That’s why I asked if you know the difference between budgets and appropriations. I still doubt you do.

    Hmm… now that I think about it, a government that is largely shut down and too wrapped up in doing last year’s work to pass any new laws, raise new taxes…

    So what are you complaining about, then?

  61. Jay Tea says:

    So what are you complaining about, then?

    I’m kinda asking myself that one a lot, and quite frankly, it’s sounding better and better.

    J.

  62. Edo Yasutaro says:

    Democrats and Republicans, with the Tea Party (assuming the Broker’s role), leading the Speaker of the House by the nose.

    “What a joke. OK. Everybody laugh!”