UPDATED: House Republicans Set To Try and Reopen Some Parts of the Government Again

Credit: SpeakerBoehner / Foter / CC BY-NCCredit: SpeakerBoehner / Foter / CC BY-NCUPDATE AT BOTTOM

Yesterday, House Republicans failed to pass funding bills for Washington D.C., Veterans Affairs, and national parks. Because the bills were brought to the House under expedited rules the bills required a two-thirds majority to pass, thereby allowing House Democrats to defeat the bills.

However, according to The Washington Times House Republicans are planning on having votes today on legislation that would fund Veterans Affairs, national parks, the National Institutes of Health, and pay for the National Guard. The Washington Times goes on to report that today’s votes will only require a simple majority to pass, making it harder for the Democrats to block the passage of the bills.

This Republican approach is being rejected by many Democrats on Capitol Hill, who see the strategy as a means for the Republicans to pick and choose which parts of the government they want to remain functioning for the duration of the partial government shutdown. According to The New York Times“Democrats say they will not negotiate any changes to the health care law, nor will they reopen the government piece by piece. To do so, they said, would only encourage Republican brinkmanship.”

TIME reported yesterday that the White House also rejected the House Republican's “piecemeal” strategy:

“These piecemeal efforts are not serious, and they are no way to run a government,” said White House Spokeswoman Amy Brundage. “If House Republicans are legitimately concerned about the impacts of a shut down — which extend across government from our small businesses to women, children and seniors — they should do their job and pass a clean CR to reopen the government. The President and the Senate have been clear that they won’t accept this kind of game-playing, and if these bills were to come to the President’s desk he would veto them.”

This post will be updated once the House votes on the latest funding proposals.

UPDATE

The House has passed legislation to reopen national parks and museums in a 252-173 vote.  

7:02pm ET update: The House has passed funding legislation for the National Institutes of Health in a 254-171 vote. 

9:00pm ET: Reason 24/7 noted earlier that the House passed legislation for the funding of the Washington D.C. government in a surprise voice vote. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Snark Plissken||

    “If House Republicans are legitimately concerned about the impacts of a shut down — which extend across government from our small businesses to women, children and seniors"

    Because nothing helps small businesses like Big Government.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    There's a horde of "small businesses" suckling at the teat of the Federal government.

  • Paul.||

    After observing the farce that has been this shutdown, plus the press' glee at reporting on it, I've solidified my theory: This shutdown is a huge stimulus program. The GOP has been trolled.

  • Tman||

    I'm enjoying this media theater over the WWII memorial.

    http://tinyurl.com/nbtkx9s

    Easily one of the dumbest unforced errors President Not My Fault has made due to the shutdown.

    Spend extra money putting up a barricade to an open air outdoor memorial that is part of the landscape as WWII vets come to visit.

    Brilliant!

  • John||

    It would seem that if the Republicans offer a bill to fund the parks, it is going to be a bit harder for the media to claim that it is the evil Republicans who are closing them down.

    And perhaps I am just out of touch, but I would love to hear the logic of how picking a fight with octogenarian World War II veterans is a good political strategy.

  • Hyperion||

    And perhaps I am just out of touch, but I would love to hear the logic of how picking a fight with octogenarian World War II veterans is a good political strategy.

    It's not just a good political strategy, it's the greatest ever. We should all be calling our Democratic senators and urging them to do this as a top priority. Stop those anarchists! Do it now, it's for their own good!

  • Tman||

    Can you imagine the shitstorm if one of the vets from the Honor Flight gets hurt or arrested by a park ranger trying to stop him from visiting the memorial THAT WAS BUILT FOR HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE???

    Whatever sympathy remained for Democrats over the shut down would disappear over night.

    Hilarious.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, I can imagine it. Why do you think I want to antagonize them into doing it? Push the mask off of these fascists for everyone to see.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's not just a good political strategy, it's the greatest ever.

    Hairy Reed inserting his leg down his throat today was even better.

    Reporter but if it can save even one child's life, why wouldn't you vote for it(funding for NHS)

    Reid Why would we want to do that?

    The dumbfuckery and tone deafness is awesome.

  • Paul.||

    I would just go over it.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I doubt they they have the balls to arrest anyone for that.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think you underestimate the petulance of the executive branch of government.

  • Snark Plissken||

    At this point, even in their beltway bubble, they have to realize that a vet martyr is a terrible thing.

  • Paul.||

    That could swing both ways. It's a game of chicken. If the vet sees it's closed, it's the evil republicans who shut down government. If the vet has critical thinking skills, then yeah, the Dems are in trouble.

  • Paul.||

    Never underestimate yadda yadda. It would be an arrest I'd welcome.

  • RightNut||

    If you think the WWII memorial closing is petty, look at the WWI memorial.

    One little fence making sure those damn tourists know the government is shut down and they can't possibly view the memorial.

  • Paul.||

    It's proof that without government, you can't even walk around.

  • ||

    Thread winner.

  • Bam!||

    Closed except for first amendment activities? One could argue that bypassing the fence is a form of protest and therefore anyone can visit the memorial.

  • Mickey Rat||

    These days it is easier to keep WWI veterans from visiting their memorial than WWII veterans.

  • Hyperion||

    This Republican approach is being rejected by many Democrats on Capitol Hill, who see the strategy as a means for the Republicans to pick and choose which parts of the government they want to remain functioning

    Yes, dear comrades, it's TOTAL government or anarchy! That's the only 2 possible choices!

    /The Dumbocrats

  • John||

    I am very curious to see how this plays. The only reason the Dems can give for saying no is that agreeing to fund other parts of the government reduces their leverage to get Obmacare funded.

    That is true. But it is hard to then square that with the accusation that the evil Republicans have taken the government hostage to get their way.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Any rational viewer would say that if anyone is "taking the government hostage", it's the Democrats who are refusing to fund anything unless they get exactly what they want. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of rational people when it comes to politics.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not know about that. Attaching the defunding to a CR passed days before a shutdown would occur can fairly be characterized as 'taking the government hostage,' or at the least a pretty plain game of 'chicken.'

    Both sides want something and are not going to let anything through unless they get that.

  • Agammamon||

    What drives me crazy is - the Democrats are now doing the exact same thing they accuse the Republicans of doing.

    Refusing to 'compromise' and playing brinkmanship games.

    I see so many people complaining that the Republicans are bad for forcing a government shutdown that 99% of the country is unlikely to even notice but no animosity is attached to the Democrats for refusing to fund *any* of the 'critical' services that have been cut off.

  • #||

    I would be thrilled if the media largely reported this as a game of chicken. Because that's what it is.

  • ||

    Only strangely, not funding the government doesn't result in anarchy, it results in the police locking people out of open-air memorials and public parks.

    SHOW ME THE ANARCHY!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    However, according to The Washington Times House Republicans are planning on having votes today on legislation that would fund Veterans Affairs, national parks, the National Institutes of Health, and pay for the National Guard. The Washington Times goes on to report that today’s votes will only require a simple majority to pass, making it harder for the Democrats to block the passage of the bills.

    This Republican approach is being rejected by many Democrats on Capitol Hill, who see the strategy as a means for the Republicans to pick and choose which parts of the government they want to remain functioning for the duration of the partial government shutdown. According to The New York Times, “Democrats say they will not negotiate any changes to the health care law, nor will they reopen the government piece by piece. To do so, they said, would only encourage Republican brinkmanship.”


    That's right! What we need is a 1000, no, 2000 page omnibus bill that no one will read and to vote on it tomorrow! That is how responsible government works!

    Passing these limited subject-matter bills is Republican terrorism!

  • Root Boy||

    Supposedly one promise Boner made when he took over in 2010 is not to do Omnibus and instead do individual bills. They lied, of course, but at least we have them doing what they promised now.

    Now, if they'd only do a half-priced farm bill....

  • Anonymous Coward||

    John Boehner has suffered a premature leak.

    The leaks, which are a major taboo in Washington, show Boehner (R-Ohio) worked behind the scenes earlier this year to address confusion over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that would force members of Congress and their aides into the exchanges. In fact, if one were to go by the leaks, which were first published by Politico, it appears that the offices of Boehner and Reid regularly coordinated to exempt Congress from the health care law.

    But given that Boehner is now apparently against congressional Obamacare exemptions, the emails make him look inconsistent and hypocritical – which may have been the point of their leaking.

    This “is for [Boehner] & [Reid] to ask the President to carve us out of…Obamacare”

    One email even appears to show that Boehner’s office discussed how it would disguise a planned meeting on the subject with President Barack Obama as a meeting on immigration reform, National Review Online reported.

    Scumbags gonna scumbag.

  • Winded||

    Since the giant government they shut down Monday all was implemented at the same time, I guess the only way to restore it is all at once?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "This Republican approach is being rejected by many Democrats on Capitol Hill, who see the strategy as a means for the Republicans to pick and choose which parts of the government they want to remain functioning for the duration of the partial government shutdown."

    Why would legislators think they can pick and choose which parts of the government they want to fund?

    Who do they think they are?

  • Tman||

    Yeah, I don't get that, people arguing that Congress can't "pick and choose" which parts to fund?

    That's kinda their job, actually.

  • Mrs. Renard||

    Why would a President think he can pick and choose which parts of the law he wants to enforce?

    Who does he think he is?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Very nice.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "This Republican approach is being rejected by many Democrats on Capitol Hill, who see the strategy as a means for the Republicans to pick and choose which parts of the government they want to remain functioning for the duration of the partial government shutdown."

    You mean just as the executive branch is doing right now - picking and choosing what parts of the government it wants to remain functioning?

    But of course that's all different because it's THEIR team doing it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You are being too logical. Such logocentrism is not allowed, citizen.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    It's certainly not allowed in liberal Democrat land.

    Of course liberal Democrats would have to first become cognizant of the concept of logocentrism before it could be allowed.

    The odds of that ever happened are about 0.0%

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    “Democrats say they will not negotiate any changes to the health care law, nor will they reopen the government piece by piece. To do so, they said, would only encourage Republican brinkmanship.”

    We refuse to negotiate with these Republicans or accept half-measures.

    Why are these Republicans so extremist and uncompromising?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's a classic case of projection. As usual.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The Republicans are playing brinkmanship, but refusing to come over the brink to our side.

  • Pro Libertate||

    MEET US HALFWAY. . .OVER THE CLIFF.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    Have to share this:

    '
    Intel chief suggests US spies might defect over budget impasse

    Could Russia or Iran exploit the Washington budget impasse to recruit American spies?

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seems to think so.

    "This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit," Clapper said, citing the "financial challenges" facing intelligence employees from both the current stand-off and furloughs driven by the sequester." '

    This guy, Clapper, may be the worst human being in the world if you weight incompetence and ignorance slightly higher than malevolence.

  • John||

    Oh for the love of God. If our intel community is one missed paycheck from going over to the Russians, I think Clapper has a few things to answer for.

    Clapper really is a new high in government crapweasel. Shameless does not fully describe this asshole.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But at least he established his credibility in his painfully-honest Congressional testimony!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Right, we're not paying intelligence personnel--somehow, I suspect that is not the case. And they're so venal and corrupt that they'd betray their country rather than, I dunno, find another job.

  • Killazontherun||

    I could hardly think of a more insulting thing to say about the intelligence community than they are all a bunch of mercenaries who trade our secrets to the highest bidder which at the moment just happens to be the FedGov. I hope they are insulted enough to destroy the fuckstain. That would be an act of integrity on their part.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    Don't look at it that way. Clapper just endorsed firing everyone in the intelligence community.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Only 30% have been deemed essential. What does that tell you?

  • ||

    Isn't this the same guy who told a bald-faced lie to Congress about the NSA's surveillance programs?

    Methinks he doth project too much.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    “These piecemeal efforts are not serious, and they are no way to run a government,” said White House Spokeswoman Amy Brundage. “If House Republicans are legitimately concerned about the impacts of a shut down — which extend across government from our small businesses to women, children and seniors — they should do their job and pass a clean CR to reopen the government. The President and the Senate have been clear that they won’t accept this kind of game-playing, and if these bills were to come to the President’s desk he would veto them.”

    God, those Republicans are so intransigent!

    The President would be completely justified in rounding them all up and shooting them, but we can't afford the bullets.

  • John||

    Back in the ancient times when we had a budget every year, different departments got their funding weeks sometimes months apart. In the evil Bush era, DOD and DHS would always get funded and have their bills passed first and the rest of the government would have to wait, sometimes until the last minute and occasionally even get shut down for a few days as the Congress fought over some spending issue.

    It was absolute anarchy back then. It was just anarchy. We didn't even have a government under Bush.

  • Raven Nation||

    "they should do their job and pass a clean CR."

    Hmm, so their job does not include passing an actual budget. A CR will do, right? I'm not sure of all the motivations, but is it true that it is easier to stuff extra spending into a CR than into a budget?

  • robc||

    Exactly.

    Any CR is the sign of them not doing their jobs.

    They should never be necessary.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Maybe the GOP should agree to allow funding for Obamacare in exchange for the Democrats passing a balanced budget amendment.

  • Raven Nation||

    Never totally sure about that since it could be used as a pretext to raise taxes.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    Better the country should shoulder the entire cost up front of all the government they say they want, no?

  • Raven Nation||

    True. But, the US is really getting into a situation where people who have accrued wealth are being compelled to support a size of government demanded by those who have not accrued the wealth.

    This is what is particularly mendacious about a lot of statist claims. I was listening to a clip from an Obama speech from earlier this year where he declared that (in November) the country had made it clear that the wealthy should pay their fair share. So, those without wealth have determined that we should have a large state and have also determined that those with wealth should support this large state.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    This is also true. If I were going about it I would game the system this way too. But if it's to be done regardless I guess I would rather someone pay for it than nobody.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I know, but our spending is so far beyond our revenues that it would have to result in spending cuts. And I think we're about at our maximum possible tolerance for taxation, anyway.

  • Raven Nation||

    ProL: agreed that our current spending requires cuts. BUT a lot of Americans don't. They truly believe that jacking up taxes on the wealthy will solve the problem. And that will be the default option until things collapse.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'd rather have the fight be today, between people getting gouged and the gougers, than between today and the unrepresented future.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit," Clapper said, citing the "financial challenges" facing intelligence employees from both the current stand-off and furloughs driven by the sequester." '

    Wow. I'm not sure even Peter King could come up up something so stupid and mendacious.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    If the Republicans are hostage-takers, the Democrats are Keyser Soze.

  • Finrod||

    I love that line.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Buy this magazine Fund this government, or we'll shoot this dog."

  • SweatingGin||

    dogpanda.

    Have to fund the government so they can shoot dogs.

  • Raven Nation||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I hope they reopen the Alt-Text Department first.

  • ||

    In this story, the Republicans are chided by the Democrats for their (Repubs) desire "to pick and choose which parts of the government they want to remain functioning".

    That seems to me to be the very essence of the responsibility of a representative, especially when faced with a constraint on available funds. It seems wrong to recognize the shortage of available funds and continue to demand EVERYTHING be funded (as the democrats seem to want.)

  • SugarFree||

    OH, SNAP!

    Senator Rand Paul ‏@SenRandPaul 3m
    . @BarackObama sent 7 security guards to #WWIIMemorial this AM to keep out our vets. Sadly, that is 2 more than were present in Benghazi.

    I hope you bought some carbon offsets Obama, 'cause you just got BURNED!

  • seguin||

    “These piecemeal efforts are not serious, and they are no way to run a government,”

    Voting on what programs we want to use and fund, while getting rid of others? You're right, that's ridiculous.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I could hardly think of a more insulting thing to say about the intelligence community than they are all a bunch of mercenaries who trade our secrets to the highest bidder which at the moment just happens to be the FedGov. I hope they are insulted enough to destroy the fuckstain. That would be an act of integrity on their part.

    Exactly what I was thinking. Hopefully, all of his Top Secret personal e-mails will be posted for examination and ridicule.

  • Azathoth!!||

    “These piecemeal efforts are not serious, and they are no way to run a government,” said White House Spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

    You're absolutely right. The way to run a government is to pass a budget--something else you fuckers have failed miserably at.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    Sen. Cruz Calls for Separate Action to Fund Intelligence

    Oh noes, the poor NSAs won't be able to spy on their girlfriends because of the shutdown! (and I am just a concern troll for being a little bit wary of Cruz's commitment to liberty)

  • robc||

    Whats the deal with the phrase "clean continuing resolution"?

    And if it means what I think it means, wouldnt that be just a continuation of the last passed budget, which was in 2009 (technically not a budget, but an omnibus spending bill, which is close enough) more than a year before ACA passed?

    Obamacare has never been funded in any budget. So any of the previous CR's that included it werent "clean" either.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh come on!

    Clean means "Democrats get what they want."

    Just as compromise means "Democrats get what they want."

    Or reasonable means "Democrats get what they want."

    And fair means "Democrats get what they want."

    Democrats get what they want.

  • John Thacker||

    Yes, that's what it means. It's all about status quo (which is part of why people fight about what the baseline is for status quo budgets).

    Obamacare isn't funded in any budget because it's an entitlement. It's also not funded in this CR or any other CR, nor shutdown by the shutdown. It's funded regardless of whether a budget is passed, unless the budget specifically includes something to change the law.

    This is similar to how, say, farm subsidies don't pass in year to year budgets either.

  • John Thacker||

    Earlier, the House Dems were trying to talk like accepting the sequestration of funds was a compromise for them. But then again, that's "the law" too, and was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

  • np||

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/10.....tion-to-fu
    Sen. Cruz Calls for Separate Action to Fund Intelligence

    Ted Cruz encouraged his Senate colleagues to pass a continuing resolution that would fully fund the federal government’s intelligence-gathering community, which director James Clapper said was at risk amid the shutdown. The Texas senator called on Senate majority leader Harry Reid and President Obama to help pass and sign it into law similar to ensuring funding for payment for those serving in the military.

    “If the Senate cooperates, we could get this passed by the end of the day,” Cruz said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday morning. “I hope that issues of partisan politics can be set aside and we can all come together and pass right now, by the end of the day, a continuing resolution to fully fund the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.”

    Apparently the Tea Party's darling "Small Government Republican" means: BIG Gov, with all the 3 letter agencies in tact, and everything for the law-n-order, terrorist-fighting crowd, but minus Obamacare... but with welfare, just not Obamacare.

  • John Thacker||

    Only a very few people are talking about cutting the defense budget-- the House Dem position is that it should be increased, by getting rid of the sequester, as is the position of a good chunk (most) of the House Republicans. Except that the Dems want to increase all the other spending as well.

    It's about 30 or so House GOP members (like Mick Mulvaney of SC and the former gov. Mark Sanford) who are keeping defense spending down at all.

    And the Dems, including Reid and Obama, are against reforming any practices, which is something that ought to happen, whether in an appropriations bill or not-- unfortunately Amash's amendment failed on the House military appropriations bill.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You would not know this from the many conservatives who are decrying the 'dangerous Obama cuts to the defense budget.'

  • John Thacker||

    The cuts to the defense budget are the result of the sequester. The idea was that the Republicans would hate defense cuts so much that they'd get rid of the sequester.

    It would work too, except for about 38 GOPers who refuse to go along. This is the roll call of importance in the House.

    38 Republicans refused to go along with a plan to partially exempt DoD from the sequester through chicanery (the vote for was a Mulvaney amendment to hit defense appropriations just as much as everything else), just enough to overcome 18 Dems that wanted more defense funding and would take it without the other funding.

    The rest of the Dems mostly want more Defense funding (except for their left wing), but insist on the other funding coming back too.

    It's an unstable situation, but thanks to those 38 House GOP opposing both types of spending, we're getting defense cuts.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -thanks to those 38 House GOP opposing both types of spending, we're getting defense cuts.

    This is a strange way to explain a vote in which 177 Democrats and 38 Republicans voted to not allow the increased spending.

  • John Thacker||

    Because the Democrats wanted to push a plan that would restore all the spending. They were needed, yes, to keep the pro-military GOP wing from cheating from the bargain. But if they had a majority, they'd increase all the spending. They voted for Mulvaney as a second best option to prevent the agreement from being one-sided.

    There's more than one possible coalition in the House. It's a careful three-way balance of power that's causing 38 Members to have more power than their numbers would warrant.

    However, these latest tactics may end up in the rest of the GOP throwing overboard the limited spending 40 members and joining with the 177 Dems.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    None of the motivations of these people, with the exception perhaps of someone such as Rep. Amash, are likely pure.

  • robc||

    No it isnt. The Ds didnt have the votes to do it alone, they needed defectors.

  • John Thacker||

    If your point is that the vast majority of House Republicans aren't libertarians or even libertarian leaning, then yes, absolutely.

    But there's around 40 who are pretty good, and with a small majority they can try to get a few things done to nudge things in a libertarian direction-- but if they piss off the statist Republicans too much, the "moderates" will decide that they'd rather join with Democrats to pass things and tell the libertarian leaners to fuck off even more.

  • John Thacker||

    In the budget fight, most Dem priorities, in order:

    1. No sequester.
    2. Sequester of just defense.
    3. Sequester of everything.
    4. Sequester of everything but defense.

    A few progressives switch 1 and 2. A few moderates, around 18, switch 2 and 3.

    Most GOP priorities:

    1. Sequester of everything but defense.
    2. Sequester of everything.
    3. No sequester.
    4. Sequester of just defense.

    Mulvaney libertarian wing's priorities:

    1. Sequester of everything.
    2. Sequester of everything but defense.
    3. Sequester of just defense.
    4. No sequester.

    With cycles, and groups of sufficient size, there are different possible coalitions, and vote ordering makes a difference.

  • John Thacker||

    Of course, party loyalty is enough to keep most House GOPers from complaining about the 38 libertarian wingers.

    Except for Peter King (R-IRA). But he's an asshole.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    Yep, me (Plopper), is just a "concern troll" for being wary of Cruz and thinking the government shutdown is not strategically advantageous.

    Fuck Cruz with a stick.

  • robc||

    Fuck strategy.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    Fuck long term planning

    Yep, wise words there.

  • robc||

    Do the right thing and deal with the outcomes later.

    I guess "Do the right thing" is technically a strategy, or maybe a tactic, but not in the sense that most people think.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Could you and the other prominent concern troll here please get a room and fuck each other to death?

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    Gotta make sure that the intelligence community is funded so they can jack off to all of the teenage sexters with their vast spy network!

    Cruz is so awesome!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Has Cruz endorsed the NSA's meta-data trolling? The DoD and intelligence gathering are constitutional functions of government (although there are unconstitutional means being used). It would not be a good thing if the US had no intelligence gathering ops tomorrow.

  • John Thacker||

    He saw which way the wind was blowing on that one and is against it right now. Not sure I trust him as much as Rand, but yeah, policy is a somewhat different thing than appropriations.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    True, but it isn't like they are totally shut down.

    I see this as being more that they will hopefully only be staffed just enough to be doing what they're supposed to do and not spying on their girlfriends and US citizens at large.

    It just seems telling to me that Cruz is most concerned about the NSA and the military though.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is telling that he's concerned about the few things that the USG is authorized to do. It's more telling that you can't shut up about him.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    It is telling that he's concerned about the few things that the USG is authorized to do.

    So most of what the NSA does is authorized by the constitution? I'd say only some of what they do is.

    Do you really think the current shutdown is actually truly affecting our national security? I highly doubt it.

    If the intelligence community did only what they were authorized to do I'd agree with Cruz's sentiments, but right now they spend way too much and go way beyond their authorized duties.

  • John Thacker||

    Do you really think that the current shutdown is actually affecting the spying, both what we do and do not agree with?

    That sort of stuff is considered "essential." What's considered inessential is maintenance and research and things like that that, in the short run, won't make a difference, and will be made up for when the shutdown is over.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    Even more reason to be wary of people overly worried about funding the "intelligence community" during the shutdown.

  • Finrod||

    Now you're just being a clueless douche. John Thacker just destroyed your position, and your reply is 'Even more reason'?

    Go away and come back when you have multiple neurons firing.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Yeah. The CIA totally expected the fall of the Soviet Union and the attack on the twin towers. What would we do without them?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is further evidence that the GOP's current crusade is less of an indicator of a 'libertarian moment' in the Republican Party but instead is the usual 'stick it to Obama and the Democrats.'

    Do not get me wrong, in the current political system and climate libertarians have to value wins we get regardless of the motivation of the victors, but let us have no illusions about the Republican Party doing what they are doing because they believe in small, non-coercive government.

  • John Thacker||

    I don't think that anyone was under the impression that the Republicans were going to sell off the National Parks, defund the Veterans' Administration (regardless of promises to vets), and slash funding for the NIH.

    Hell, you likely couldn't get a majority of registered Libertarians to approve that. And if anybody did, they'd be punished like hell by the rest of the citizenry.

  • sarcasmic||

    You make a very persuasive rebuttal to an argument I have yet to see made.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There have been a fair amount of discussions here extolling Cruz et al.

  • Finrod||

    Have you finished picking the straw out of your clothing after beating up that strawman?

  • robc||

    You dont turn on fellow travelers until you have a majority without them.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Just because you happen upon someone who seems to be walking the same way you are for a block does not mean that person is a 'fellow traveler.'

  • Cytotoxic||

    When the block is this important, and they're carrying you, I wouldn't be too fussy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do not misunderstand me. I would like to see Obamacare defunded, or, better yet, repealed. I do not think Cruz will help bring that about, and I suspect if he did his motivations would not be good ones, but I would celebrate the victory nonetheless.

    My point, to stretch the metaphor, is we can expect him to take an immediate right away from us sometime soon in this walk.

  • robc||

    Which still makes him better than about 98 senators.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That midget wears heels, yes.

  • robc||

    No one has argued anything else.

    I dont understand why you are spending so much time on Cruz when there is Reid to pick on, for example?

    You have 98 guys to crusade against.

    The answer is that you are Blue Tulpa, so you arent going to go on an eternal tirade against a Dem.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not see people calling themselves libertarians and posting at a libertarian website celebrating Harry Reid.

    Additionally, Harry Reid is not currently outpolling Rand Paul, an actual and demonstrable libertarian choice, for the GOP nomination.

    As to your last comment, perhaps it is you that are some kind of 'Red Tulpa' and this explains your eternal defense of Cruz and the GOP.

  • robc||

    your eternal defense of Cruz and the GOP.

    ???

    Ive never defended either. I did say Cruz might be better than 98 congressman, which as I agreed with your "midget in heels" comment is damning with faint praise. Not a defense.

    Tulpa is red Tulpa, you moron.

    Im saying pick on number 100 or number 98 or something. Not #2ish (Im not sure he is #2, but in the top 5 probably).

    Hell, pick on the GOP minority leader in the Senate. You can mock McConnell all day long and twice on Sundays.

    I did vote for him once. Once.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    We are certainly missing each other, because I thought I explained that I am not picking or mocking on someone like McConnell (or Reid) because I do not think any libertarian would think them a 'fellow traveler.'

  • robc||

    We are certainly missing each other, because I thought I explained that I am not picking or mocking on someone like McConnell (or Reid) because I do not think any libertarian would think them a 'fellow traveler.'

    People who know one thinks of as a fellow traveler deserve to be picked on MORE, not less.

    Stop trying to push someone out of the tent, even if they dont really want to be there and just happened to wander thru. And one issue that Cruz (or anyone else) is right on, is one issue in which he is fellow traveling. Use him, dont mock him.

  • robc||

    who no one

  • robc||

    McConnell hired Jesse Benton, so he wants people to think he is a fellow traveler.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You expect and frankly it's clear you want him to.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I want him to not be libertarian?

    That is certainly incorrect. I wish all 100 of them would start being libertarian. I just do not at this point see convincing evidence of the junior Senator from Texas doing so (yet).

  • John Thacker||

    My biggest beef with Cruz is that taking a stand in that way is likely to lead more "moderate" members to join with Democrats in passing something. I have bigger tactical complaints with him.

    I mean his previous tactic. Smaller funding bills of things that have 90+% support in this country in order to separate them from something with less support is a better tactical idea than shutting down the whole government.

  • robc||

    Shutting down the whole government (which is false anyway, since 80% or so are still at work) is a good strategy.

    Okay, maybe a poor tactic, but I will take good strategy over good tactics any day.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    How is it good for the long term if it's just going to be used by the media to tar and feather the GOP?

  • robc||

    Who listens to the media?

  • robc||

    BTW, Bo, ^^right there^^ is a legit opening for your "I dont know anyone that voted for Nixon" commentary.

    Except here is the difference: I dont value the opinion of anyone who listens to the media.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Have you seen this, from Grover Norquist today?

    -When’s the last time we passed a big government entitlement and every Republican opposed it and kept pointing out that it’s a mistake? There’s unanimity among Republicans. They all voted against the thing being created and for it being repealed.

    The only confusion that comes out is that Cruz stood on the side and confused people about the fact that every Republican agrees. He said if you don’t agree with my tactic and with the specific structure of my idea, you’re bad. He said if the House would simply pass the bill with defunding he would force the Senate to act. He would lead this grass-roots movement that would get Democrats to change their mind. So the House passed it, it went to the Senate, and Ted Cruz said, oh, we don’t have the votes over here. And I can’t find the e-mails or ads targeting Democrats to support it. Cruz said he would deliver the votes and he didn’t deliver any Democratic votes. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....y/?hpid=z2

  • robc||

    He pushed House Republicans into traffic

    This is what IM fighting.

    How is doing the right thing being "pushed into traffic"?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    and I suspect if he did his motivations would not be good ones

    Who gives a fuck about motivations? Oh yeah, proglodyte dumb fucks.

    In the real world, results matter. I'd rather have libertarian result for venal reasons than bad results for pure reasons.

    Then again, I'm not a cultist.

  • Winston||

    Well for one thing I never believed in any of the nonsense about a "libertarian moment."

    And it's not as if the inability to eliminate Obamacare or the unpopularity of a government "shutdown" is evidence of a "libertarian moment" either.

  • robc||

    ^^This^^

    I *might* believe in a "libertarian moment" when Paul is in the White House, but not any sooner than that, and that doesnt guarantee it either.

  • RyanXXX||

    it's relative. We are in libertarian moment in comparison to any time since Reagan (who was no libertarian)

    Doesn't mean we're on the verge of becoming US of Rothbardia

  • Cytotoxic||

    Perhaps it is more accurate statement to say that The Progressive Moment is over/ending and way past Zenith.

  • RyanXXX||

    Yup. The seeming intensity of the conservative/libertarian backlash is just a response to the intensity of the progressive assault (plus a sprinkling of redneck Obama hatred)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Wishful thinking at this point. I hope you're right but I still see a fanatical devotion to Barry and lots of nonsense claims of "radical right wing extremists" and "Barry would be too conservative to get elected anywhere else."

    The movement doesn't have to have much support as long as they can demonize the other guys.

  • Adam330||

    Still not a mention of this on the Washington Post page. They have a dozen articles on the shutdown, and not a single one mentioning yesterday's vote or today's vote.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The House has passed funding legislation for the National Institutes of Health in a 254-171 vote.

    House Democrats' war on medical research!

  • Agammamon||

    We can always hope that this sort of thing will keep the vast 'majority' of those furloughed on the bench. That in one fell swoop we might have made long-term cuts in government spending of 10-20%.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Will that happen? Even Rush today said it is certain they are going to get back pay when it is over.

  • John Thacker||

    They probably will get back pay. It's happened almost every time.

  • sarcasmic||

    Almost?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    60% of the time, it works every time.

  • Agammamon||

    *If* it lasts long enough, I expect that back-pay will be heavily curtailed or even eliminated.

    And even without that - these organizations have had to cut back on non-payroll spending. If nothing else that's a not insignificant savings.

  • Winston||

    The annoying thing about this whole shutdown is the battles between the libertarian Purists and the liberation Pragmatists, even in Reason itself! Especially annoying is that the Purists can be quite pragmatic when it suits them (see Rothbard's alliance with the New Left in the 1960s or the Ron Paul Newsletters fiasco) and the Pragmatists can be quite purist when it suits them (see Suderman and Hinkle's calls for the GOP to eliminate entitlements).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Can't we all get along?

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's hard with concern trolls telling us that Cruz is really a deep-cover GOP lizard man and we know so because he clerked for Renquist.

  • RyanXXX||

    I think the difference might be that the purists advocate alliances with other "dissidents" outside of the mainstream (like Rothbard did) while the pragmatists advocate working with sympathetic groups within the establishment.

  • XM||

    I love this opening line in her article.

    "Reason’s Matt Welch is occasionally smart."

  • Lady Bertrum||

    But Joan Walsh is never smart. She's booooring all the time.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Very Important Question:

    Will the Senate have to vote on these mini-bills or can Reid just table them?

  • John Thacker||

    Oh, Reid doesn't have to schedule a damn thing if he doesn't want to. And he doesn't have to unless there's public pressure for him to do so. (Or, in the unlikely case that his caucus revolts on him, but that will only happen if the Dems start looking worse in the polls due to this, instead of the Reps.)

  • RyanXXX||

    Except for quoting David Frum and the stupid final sentence, this NYT column by Ross Douthat sums up the situation pretty well. Progs and "moderate centrists" alike just don't understand where the small-government "right" is coming from. They may honestly be convinced that they have given a ton of "concessions" to Tea Party types. The thought of actually cutting government, of actually shrinking the state, is just madness to them.

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....ossdouthat

  • Metazoan||

    “They didn’t dare,” Frum wrote of the Intransigents’ Reagan-era predecessors, “and they realized that they didn’t dare.” Well, this time, no matter the risks and costs and polls, there are small-government conservatives who intend to dare — because only through a kind of wild daring, they believe, can the long-term, post-New Deal disadvantage that the cause of limited government labors under finally be overcome.

    I recognize that he's mocking them in this passage, but this did make me a bit happy, out of context.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Darrell Issa proposes replacing Obamacare with -- Obamacare-like twin.

    "Federal employees have long enjoyed high-quality, affordable health care benefits through this free market, consumer based system," says Issa.

    In fact, FEHBP is similar to the Obamacare exchanges in a lot of ways.

    If insurers want to participate in the FEHBP, they can't exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, just like Obamacare .
    They have to accept applicants " without regard to age, race, sex, health status, or hazardous nature of employment." This is called guaranteed issue, and it's just like Obamacare.
    They have to charge all applicants the same premium for a given plan. This is called community rating, and it's more restrictive of insurers than Obamacare , which allows for substantial premium variation based on age.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....39366.html

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    And Darrell Issa is an idiot, what's your point? Who cares?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is always worth recognizing that Darell Issa is an idiot.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm always humored by the GOP plans for health insurance to replace the ACA.

    "REPEAL AND REPLACE!" is just more bullshit.

  • RyanXXX||

    That's some principled opposition, right there.

  • Agammamon||

    I guess the difference you have difficulty seeing is that these insurance companies participating in the FEHBP DO NOT HAVE TO DO SO!

    They can afford to split costs by segmenting their customer base - something Obamacare eliminated.

    When you eliminate segmentation then the lowest profit-making plans get tossed and the average cost goes up.

    Fuck man, I've only studied economics, of and on, on my own for a few years and I can understand how that works.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Insurance companies are by no means required to participate in the ACA exchanges. In fact, Aetna has made news several times by not doing so.

  • Agammamon||

    Who the fuck cares about the exchanges - are you saying that Aetna is exempt from the minimum coverage requirements that the PPACA lays out?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    States had that role as it is. It is nothing new except for the federal usurping of it. All legal per the Constitution and its Supremacy Clause.

  • Agammamon||

    And you change the subject yet *again*.

    We are not talking about the legality of PPACA, not talking about the exchanges - we are talking about the difference between being forced into PPACA and *choosing* to participate in FEHBP.

    One is voluntary, the other is not - that is a *huge* difference between the programs.

  • robc||

    Bo reminds me of joe in one minor but important way.

    Remember how joe was perfectly fine posting here during the Bush years and even arguing and trolling?

    But come Feb of 2009 we were all racist fuckheads for treating Obama the same way we treated Bush?

    Yeah, same thing.

    How dare we trash the senate majority leader instead of some guy who is actually good on 1 or 2 issues!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They are both polite and good faith posters as well.

    Which stands out here since that is a rarity amongst the Peanut Gallery.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    If only we could all be more like Buttplug!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    His nick is the very definition of politeness and decorum.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -How dare we trash the senate majority leader instead of some guy who is actually good on 1 or 2 issues!

    What in the world are you talking about?

    What I am doing, and have done, regarding Cruz is simply point out that currently he is at most good on 1 or 2 issues.

    And I have never said anything in rebuke of anyone criticizing Mitch McConnell.

  • robc||

    Cruz is simply point out that currently he is at most good on 1 or 2 issues.

    1 or 2 is enough for me, WHEN THOSE ISSUES ARE FRONT AND CENTER.

    When the focus shifts to issues on which he sucks, fire away. But today, and recently, its been about issues where Cruz doesnt suck.

  • VG Zhitphayce||

    Libertarians and "libertarian-leaning conservatives" already hate Reid. We all hate Reid, it doesn't even need to be said.

    Comparing people who simply disagree with you on your particular political darling doesn't make them team blue or Obama cheerleaders like Buttplug and Tony.

  • robc||

    Cruz isnt my particular political darling. If anyone is, its Paul and Paul and Amash and Massie.

  • CE||

    Isn't this the way government funding is supposed to work? The House passes a bill for something, and the Senate gets to vote on it, then sends it to the President for signature. There's a debt ceiling law in place that was already passed. Just stop borrowing any more, and pass bills for new spending only up to whatever tax revenue is "trickling" in. (Hint, it's close to 3 trillion per, more than enough to run the non-non-essential parts of the government.)

  • Acosmist||

    Try to, you illiterate.

  • ||

    So, I expect the Senate will reject this and insist that the Republicans fund everything they want.

    Which is pretty mean and spiteful toward the many tourists who probably want to get into the Smithsonian right now. Why do they need to be punished to teach a lesson to the Republicans?

  • John Thacker||

    It's particularly bad to residents of DC. Eleanor Norton got some time on the floor to beg for the DC funding bill, but they only got the same 34 or so Democrats to vote for it-- even though a hundred or so signed a letter asking for DC to be exempt from the shutdown on Monday.

    Apparently they didn't actually mean it.

  • John Thacker||

    Note especially that it's not even "funding" for DC government. Under the terms of its charter, the DC budget must be approved by Congress before it can spend anything. This is about the DC government spending money collected from local city taxes. Congress just has to sign off on the DC budget.

  • ||

    While I remain skeptical of the wisdom of shutting down the government .... I do have to admit that it IS FUN.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement