Fiscal Cliff

[bumper]

Can you believe this here we go again:

Shutdown odds rising as Obama, Congress entrench on spending
By Justin Sink and Molly Hooper - 07/27/13 06:00 AM ET

The odds of a government shutdown this autumn are increasing, with the White House and congressional leaders both digging in.

On Capitol Hill, partisans on both sides of the aisle are demanding that the next federal budget include provisions their political opponents will find objectionable.

Twelve Republican senators — including likely 2016 presidential candidates Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — have said they will not sign off on any spending bill that includes funding for the president’s signature health care law. And as of Friday, at least sixty-nine House Republicans had signed on to a yet-to-be-sent letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) demanding that a continuing resolution defund ObamaCare in its entirety.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), meanwhile, vowed to do “everything within my ability” to oppose a budget that maintains sequester-level spending.

Moreover, the Washington Post reported Friday that senior White House officials were weighing a strategy by which President Obama would threaten a veto of any bill that did not roll back the sequester. Administration officials have also signaled that the president would definitively veto any legislation that provided deeper cuts than those already in place with the sequester.

There has not been a government shutdown in nearly two decades, and both parties are wary of the damage the move would do to the economy — and their poll numbers. But a unique confluence of events is increasing the likelihood that come Oct. 1, the doors to the federal government will be shuttered.

Unlike in years past, lawmakers lack the electoral incentive to strike a deal. President Obama has won re-election, and appears less willing to compromise his economic principles merely in the interest of striking a deal.

“I think they’re in a position, and I’m urging my House members to be in a position, of a much stronger, less flexible agreement with policies that we believe undermine the operations of our government, our national security and our creditworthiness,” House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) told the Post.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans know they are only likely to add seats in 2016, after retaining their majority in the House last year despite President Obama’s commanding win over Mitt Romney. The biggest threat in districts that have been gerrymandered to ruby red is from the right, and a shutdown provides the opportunity for sitting lawmakers to prove their conservative credentials.

Influential conservative advocacy groups, including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action, have circulated letters encouraging leadership to oppose any law that funds the president’s health care plan. The implied threat is that any lawmaker who backs a bill leaving ObamaCare in place is likely to face a well-financed primary threat.

Arkansas Rep. Tim Griffin (R) told The Hill that the White House's threats "might" embolden frustrated Republicans to add their names to the list of lawmakers demanding full defunding of ObamaCare.

Moreover, Republicans are interested in repealing at least part of the sequester — the deep cuts to the Pentagon and defense industry. To do so, the GOP is proposing deeper cuts to federal programs that Democrats support.

“They bust through the Budget Control Act on the defense side and bring defense numbers to the pre-sequester levels,” said a Democratic aide of the House GOP spending bills. “They do that by cutting everything else down to far below post-sequester levels.”

The surest sign lawmakers are preparing for a shutdown may be the preemptive spin from both sides, with neither wanting to be punished by voters in the increasingly likely chance no deal is struck.

Boehner’s office has hounded the White House throughout the week for refusing to categorically take a shutdown off the table.

Spokesman Brendan Buck said the president was pursuing a “lose-lose strategy” of “either a tumultuous government shutdown or further job losses as a result of tax hikes.”

On Friday, Boehner spokesman Don Seymour issued a finger-wagging response to the Washington Post report.

"This emerging White House strategy is consistent with recent administration threats to veto any spending bill unless Congress agrees to the president’s demand for a broader budget deal with higher taxes and higher spending – the type of explicit threat to shut down the government rarely seen in Washington,” Seymour said.

A leadership source said that Boehner had an inkling that the White House would pursue this strategy given prior veto threats.

"The White House signaled in June they may go down this path when they issued those two SAPs threatening to veto our VA/milcon and one other appropriations bill unless Congress agreed to the president's demand for a broader budget deal with higher taxes and higher spending," the source explained to The Hill.

Griffin was apoplectic Friday upon learning of the new White House strategy, saying the threat came “completely out of left-field literally and figuratively.”

"It strikes me as completely other-worldish. You've got a president who is pledging to shut down the government if the Congress passes spending bills at the levels he set," Griffin said. "I don't know what to say except, I guess they are flailing ... this is mind-boggling."

At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said it “makes no sense” for Republicans to threaten a shutdown.

“That would suck a lot of the momentum out of our nascent economic recovery,” Earnest said. “And there's no reason that Washington should be in the business of throwing up obstacles to our economic recovery. In fact, the President believes that Washington should be in the business of trying to figure out what we can do to actually make it easier for the private sector to continue to lead our recovery in the right direction.”

Alexander Bolton contributed.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... z2aFPT1KRj
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[FrazeeDK]

shoe you bet I can believe it.. Both sides will use the budget, the sequester, the looming "shutdown" as a political sledgehammer to prepare for the 2014 elections.. Both parties will paint the other as irresponsible budget busters who "don't care about America's security (Defense)", "don't care about the unemployed middle class (economy)", ad nauseam.. Nothing of consequence will be done and any, get that ANY deals will be rife with pork to buy off the voters or ensure hefty donations from PACs....

pardon my cynicism!!

[gudtymchuk]

shoe you bet I can believe it.. Both sides will use the budget, the sequester, the looming "shutdown" as a political sledgehammer to prepare for the 2014 elections.. Both parties will paint the other as irresponsible budget busters who "don't care about America's security (Defense)", "don't care about the unemployed middle class (economy)", ad nauseam.. Nothing of consequence will be done and any, get that ANY deals will be rife with pork to buy off the voters or ensure hefty donations from PACs....

pardon my cynicism!!

FDK, according to the latest polls you are not alone in your cynicism!

Poll Date Approve Disapprove
RCP Average 6/11 - 7/22 15.2 77.8
The Economist/YouGov 7/20 - 7/22 12 73

And the same can be said in regards to Obama with the Weasel "n Chiefs polling numbers sinking faster than the Costa Condordia

[WBU ALUM]

The federal government shuts down every weekend. No one misses it. Government shutdowns in the past over budgets and spending have not damaged a thing. Checks still go out, essential agencies are still working.

However with the Child Emperor, he will do what he has done before with the Debt Ceiling, and he proved his sinister nature with the Sequester. He will punish Americans. Obama will use the latitude that he has to make cuts and limit services by creating more discontent and more torment for Americans. I fully expect him to trot out his "your social security checks will not go out" line -- that was a LIE.

The federal government could be cut 10% across the board as a good start, and it needs to be cut even more. Some departments could be completely eliminated. The automatic increases in budgets need to be stopped completely. There should be nothing automatic about increased spending in any area.

[bumper]

shoe you bet I can believe it.. Both sides will use the budget, the sequester, the looming "shutdown" as a political sledgehammer to prepare for the 2014 elections.. Both parties will paint the other as irresponsible budget busters who "don't care about America's security (Defense)", "don't care about the unemployed middle class (economy)", ad nauseam.. Nothing of consequence will be done and any, get that ANY deals will be rife with pork to buy off the voters or ensure hefty donations from PACs....

pardon my cynicism!!

Proofs in the pudding and that has already started

[udonmarc]

The federal government shuts down every weekend. No one misses it.

I think that that's a startlingly inapposite analogy. There's no mail on Sunday; yet our society continues seven days each week. Does that mean that we don't need a mail system?

[WBU ALUM]

The federal government shuts down every weekend. No one misses it.

I think that that's a startlingly inapposite analogy. There's no mail on Sunday; yet our society continues seven days each week. Does that mean that we don't need a mail system?

Essential services will not be stopped unless the Child Emperor stops them. Come on, you're intelligent. You know that. I'm sure you were alive when the federal government shut down in previous administrations. Nothing earth-shattering happened.

That's all liberal propaganda.

You're starting to remind me of someone else who likes to cherry-pick one word or one sentence out of paragraphs of information. Up to you.

[udonmarc]

I'm sure you were alive when the federal government shut down in previous administrations. Nothing earth-shattering happened.

Indeed I was, but the analogy remains inapposite. The fact that "[n]othing earth-shattering happened" during a partial shutdown of the federal government which lasted for a very limited period of time hardly can be extrapolated to mean that those parts of the government which shut down are frivolous.

[WBU ALUM]

I'm sure you were alive when the federal government shut down in previous administrations. Nothing earth-shattering happened.

Indeed I was, but the analogy remains inapposite. The fact that "[n]othing earth-shattering happened" during a partial shutdown of the federal government which lasted for a very limited period of time hardly can be extrapolated to mean that those parts of the government which shut down are frivolous.

It's my opinion that many of the departments of the federal government only duplicate what states do, provides something that is unnecessary or not the role of the federal government, wastes taxpayer dollars, and adds another layer of torment and bureaucracy.

So having said that, many parts of the government that will be "shut down" will not be missed. Considering the "very limited period of time" -- with which you seem to agree -- this drama over a "shut down" is even less important.

[WBU ALUM]

17 government shutdowns since 1976. Most current retirees were alive during all of them. How did they harm you?

1976 - Thu Sep 30 -- 10 days
1977 - Fri Sep 30 -- 12 days
1977 - Mon Oct 31 -- 8 days
1977 - Wed, Nov 30 -- 8 days
1978 - Sat, Sep 30 -- 17 days
1979 - Sun, Sep 30 -- 11 days
1981 - Fri, Nov 20 -- 2 days
1982 - Thu, Sept 30 -- 1 day
1982 - Fri, Dec 17 -- 3 days
1983 - Thu, Nov 10 -- 3 days
1984 - Sun, Sept 30 -- 2 days
1984 - Wed, Oct 3 -- 1 day
1986 - Thu, Oct 16 -- 1 day
1987 - Fri, Dec 18 -- 1 day
1990 - Fri, Oct 5 -- 3 days
1995 - Mon, Nov 13 -- 5 days
1995 - Fri, Dec 15 -- 21 days

All 17 government shutdowns over the past 37 years totaled 109 days ... a little less than two years of weekends and national holidays. *yawn*

Look at the history of those days. Was it disasterous? Were US debts unpaid? Did the military and federal law enforcement not perform their regular duties? Did anyone starve and die as a result of these shutdowns? No. No. No. No.

Libs love to create drama.

[jackspratt]

What sort of political system leads to a government needing to "shut down"?

Just amazing.

[KHONDAHM]

What sort of political system leads to a government needing to "shut down"?

Just amazing.

Ding!

Welcome to America! Oops...sorry we're closed for the season since Re-boob-licans went totally loonie.

[FrazeeDK]

well, actually it is a good point.. None of the fiscal cliff "disasters" occurred.. In fact, many federal agencies found funding to preclude furloughs.. Political theater at its worst on both sides.

[bumper]

Here we go again boys and girls.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... -obamacare

Just keep them checks acoming and I'm happy

[noosard]

I would imagine the goverment service shutsdown during all public holtdays and weekends

[bumper]

I think they have been shut down for years now

[JimboPSM]

So, the implosion of the GOP continues; over 40 attempts (and counting) by the paid lackeys of the existing system to stop US citizens getting a cheaper and better health system.

As Einstein (is reputed to have) said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Quite rightly GOP congress members are becoming increasingly scared and desperate about the impact of the Affordable Health Care Act – once implemented they are going to have to try and explain all their hypocrisy, spin, distortions and lies about it to their constituents. As politicians (by definition, consummate liars and snake oil salesmen) no doubt many will find a way, some however will be toast with their careers in tatters.

It is difficult for those of us who live in (or have lived in) civilised developed countries to get our heads around the sheer degree of bone headed resistance to attempts to reduce the costs of a health system that costs twice as much and produces worse results (US citizens die younger).

I, like many others from outside of the US, are dumbfounded at just how utterly ignorant, gullible, dumb and/or brainwashed so many of the US public are both on the issue of their health care costs and how, as a result, their life expectancy is less.

Having said all that, I don’t actually think that the Affordable Care Act as it now stands is all that great but it was the best that could be accomplished politically, however the really important part is that it is that very vital first step on the long road to sanity in US health system costs and starting its reduction to a manageable percentage of GDP.

Those who think that is socialism need to think rather more deeply about what the existing system is – because when you look at the concept of insurance and the spreading of risk, it is in itself a form of socialism; and just how many could ever have afforded healthcare in the US without the benefit of insurance?

As the principles of the Affordable Health Care system were stolen both from the conservative think tank “The Heritage Foundation” and from “Romneycare” in Massachusetts the GOP would have been far better advised to have taken credit for originating the ideas behind it while attacking the Affordable Care Act for its high degree of plagiarism of what were conservative ideas..... well they used to be conservative ideas until that dastardly black man in the White (mans) House stole them

[bumper]

Well it goes further then that. No jobs, dollar stinks and now they cut food stamps as well. I received something form a friend saying medicare will not allow the same treatment it did before. It also said after certain age it will not pay for cancer treatment I believe it was 76. Is it true I have no idea.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... mp-program

The only objection I ever had on the program is finding a way to pay for it. Won't change a thing for me I carry n my own insurance. Is there a way to pay for it an not harm business probably, But, with all the lobbyist I doubt it will ever happen.

I would think certain medical groups don't want it and medical insurance companies as well. Personally the way our government is I would never let them make medical choices for me. I will keep paying for my insurance, no matter what they do.

[bumper]

Well Obama care number one target.

http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch ... bp99atlaht

[parrot]

Well it goes further then that. No jobs, dollar stinks and now they cut food stamps as well. I received something form a friend saying medicare will not allow the same treatment it did before. It also said after certain age it will not pay for cancer treatment I believe it was 76. Is it true I have no idea.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... mp-program

Pants on Fire!! It's bunk. There's a lot of pure bs that makes the rounds in chain emails.....death panels, birthers.....just because it's in black and white doesn't make it true.

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statem ... nder-obam/