"Name one person who won or lost an election because they didn't get a budget resolution passed."
Click above to watch a Reason.tv video released last week that shows how the Tea Party is taking its fight to states and local governments. Because, in part, its leaders (at least in Ohio) figure they can't effect much change in Washington, given the level of inanity that dominates the government.
They're on to something: A federal government shutdown looms as the current continuing resolution supplying the gummint with operating cash runs out on Friday, right around the time the debt limit is gonna be reached.
What happened the last time(s) the fed government shut down? It happened twice under Bill Clinton: briefly in November 1995 for about five days, and then later at the end of the year for a three-week stretch that ran into 1996. The day-to-day upshot was that there was "confusion" at some government agencies, including veterans' facilities, and a bunch of workers were furloughed for a while.
This time around, the issue is compounded by the fact that most agencies haven't told their workers what if any contingency plans are in place. Which, come to think of it, is part of the reason we're in this jam in the first place. More specifically, there's no budget for the current fiscal year because President Obama and Congress (back when both houses were controlled by Democrats) failed pass a budget resolution, the first time that happened since 1974, when modern rules were adopted (there have been four times, including the two mentioned above, when specific proposals were voted down, but the government had not until now failed to hammer out a year-long budget before).
Go back in time to see how this miserable state of affairs came about. Last year, the Democratic majority didn't want to take responsibility for another craptacular spending document, and the GOP minority was happy to let it all slide, on the theory that it would work to their benefit. The result? The short of shit-bag mentality on display below from Rep. Gerald Connolly back in May 2010 (when the damn budget should have been moving toward adoption):
"Name one person who won or lost an election because they didn't get a budget resolution passed."
Sadly, Connolly was right, at least in his own case. He won re-election last fall, with a confidence-inspiring 49.2 percent of the vote.
Polls show that voters will blame both parties for a shutdown. But really, we should blame ourselves for electing such total incompetents that even when they have majority power, they can't execute the most basic function of government competently, which is simply to sign their own checks. I'm not opposed to a government shutdown and given the lack of any serious discussion of spending reform (Paul Ryan's 2012 budget proposal is at best the start of a conversation, not the end of one), I don't think we should raise the debt limit. But there's no question that our "leaders" in D.C. deserve to be punished at the polls for pushing incompetence (and all the smugness that comes with it) to new lows.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm with the Ohio people in feeling a bit powerless in the face of Washington's galactic stupidity, willful malfeasance and self-serving suckishness. Seemingly, no matter what I do or for whom I vote (and lately it's been all "third party"), nothing changes. Hmm, short of armed rebell....we won't go there. For now.
But thanks for keeping this in front of us, if for no other reason than to be reminded that these MOTHERFUCKING INCOMPETENT, EVIL LEECHES CONTINUE TO SUCK THE ECONOMIC LIFEBLOOD FROM THOSE OF US WHO ACTUALLY WORK FOR A LIVING, AND ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE WE AT LEAST SLOW DOWN THE RATE AT WHICH WE LOSE OUR CASH AND OUR FREEDOM TO THESE COCKSUCKING BASTARDS.
That is all.
Well said. Or rather, written.
Armed rebellion won't work because it is not supported by the citizens. Voting in a ballot booth won't reduce the budget, either. The only real solution is to vote with your feet.
The country has accumulated unprecedented debt that cannot be repaid, a huge penalty that will burden you and other income earners for at least the next 40 years. Alternatively, imagine living with a responsible government like Hong Kong, in a Mediterranean climate like California. Chile offers a combination of pleasant climate and fewer government burdens than many others. If you're ready to shed the debt your government has imposed upon you, it is a good destination to consider:
http://brophyworld.com/move-to-santiago-chile/
I apologize for my potty mouth earlier, but I'm a little torqued up about this right now. Thank you for your understanding.
That's OK. We all have our moments of weakness.
"like POO-FLINGING MONKEYS FOR FORTY FUCKING YEARS " For the Win!
No problem. Potty on, Dude!
Unrestricted potty-mouth is one of the reasons I love this site.
douchedrinking fuckmongers
Nice!
Name one person who really gives a rat's ass about the national debt. People want cash coming in, so they can buy goods and services. If they've got that, that's all they care about. Government can pretty much do whatever it wants at that point.
This is what's really meant by the saying "jobs, jobs, jobs." You can write any number in any government spreadsheet, and color it black, red, or green, and people don't care. As long as they are getting their goods and services.
People also seem to instinctively know (even though they don't understand) that federal government "debt" is not really like their own personal debt (such as a mortgage) at all. Sure, they'll give a nod to the guy who says "but we're passing our debt onto our grandkids!" but when that guy goes away, they're right back at the trough.
Maybe you can try to change human nature. Hey, the Marxists gave it a shot - failed miserably of course.
People seem to instinctively know they'll never have to pay back their ever growing credit card balance, too. And they're right. It sure fucks up your credit, though.
we should blame ourselves for electing such total incompetents that even when they have majority power, they can't execute the most basic function of government competently, which is simply to sign their own checks.
Blameless, I am.
I have had this conversation a few times recently, mostly with respect to more local elected positions: step number one, it seems, would be for any wannabe official to do a little bit of homework, and find out what the specific duties and powers of the job *are*.
This does not happen. County commissioners have no say on abortion (or Fed policy); they are supposed to figure out how to make the trash go away.
Serious question: When the government "shuts down" how much (additional?) money is spent to "close it cleanly" and "get back on track" as opposed to just "keeping it open"?
"Thank you."
So if the government is shutting down, I guess they don't need my money anymore, right? I'll expect my check--a cashier's check, please--before the end of the month. Otherwise, interest and penalties may apply.
Paradoxically, they don't need your money even now Pro Libertate. The only (financial) reason that income taxes are collected is to sop up excess money to prevent inflation. The federal government creates all of the money, and it's put into the economy via various means including banking, welfare payments, etc.
I stipulated "financial" reason above because, of course, they also use the income tax code to "redistribute income" - or more exactly change economic outcomes so that those less productive citizens get a greater claim on the nation's GDP than they would have gotten in a free market where everyone keeps what they earn, produce, or trade for.
Well, then, I'll be sending them a bill.
At the Federal level the strongest link to spending is incumbency. Keep voting the fuckers out.
Let me be clear.
I am not a "fucker."
I am, in fact, a catcher.
Name one person who really gives a rat's ass about the national debt.
And on it goes....
It's all funny money.
In case it wasn't obvious from the context of this whole article, I was talking about the typical voter. Joe Six Pack. For him, it is truly as Cheney famously stated: "deficits don't matter."
lol, until they put a leash on the PEntagon, nothing will ever change dude.
http://www.anon-tools.no.tc
Name one person who really gives a rat's ass about the national debt.
These guys do - or did, they dumped that shit. Now it's just the Bernanke and slow-witted foriegners and slower-witted insurance companies holding the bag.
http://www.businessinsider.com.....bag-2011-4
Dollars or treasury bonds - doesn't matter all that much. Both are forms of money, both are forms of government debt. If you've "dumped" your bonds, you've got cash now. Good for you. If you want less cash, you can buy some bonds. Good for you. The US government doesn't care.
Bonds are sold (or bought) to set interest rates and control inflation, not to raise revenues to enable government spending.
I laugh at your system! I have silver Liberty Dollars! For the time being, anyway.
I've shifted to rupees and Ivory Coast bonds - FTW!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article.....K820110405
But when the ponzi scheme all crashes, I'll be living in my car like everyone else.
The only (financial) reason that income taxes are collected is to sop up excess money to prevent inflation.
Yeah.
You are like a 19th century scientist struggling with the wave-particle duality of matter. Keep straining, and maybe you'll eventually get it! Good luck.
I agree that Republicans in office should be punished at the ballot box for ignoring unemployment and instead playing insane partisan games and smugly telling poor and elderly Americans they need to give up more so that rich people can keep their tax cuts and health insurance companies can be even more profitable.
Speaking of POO-FLINGING MONKEYS....
word
WHARRRGARBL
Goddamn, man...
Tony, lying, once again, since the poor aren't giving up anything, and no one who is 55 currently is affected either.
It's a choice between raising middle class taxes and cutting middle class benefits. If you look at Obama's proposed budget, you'll see that even with the rich people giving back their tax cut, the budget deficit will be worse in every year of the ten year budget than under any year of W.
Insisting that the budget can be closed via tax increases on the rich alone is just as "unserious" as claiming that it can be done via discretionary spending alone.
That captures the "git yer government hands off my medicare" crowd doesn't it?
Nobody said rescinding the Bush tax cuts would solve the whole problem. But it would get us about a third of the way there in over 10 years. If it's not part of the conversation, then the conversation is not serious. Being hysterical over the deficit and then claiming only the radical kleptocratic Republican wishlist is the solution is totally political, not responsible.
Tony|4.5.11 @ 11:40AM|#
" no one who is 55 currently is affected either.
That captures the "git yer government hands off my medicare" crowd doesn't it?"
And it captures those who would give up the 'benefits' too, asshole. So what?
"Nobody said rescinding the Bush tax cuts would solve the whole problem. But it would get us about a third of the way there in over 10 years."
Bullshit. Any tax increase would be spent and then some.
"If it's not part of the conversation, then the conversation is not serious."
And if it is, you're an ignoramus.
The dragon certainly seems to be obsessed with "the Reason.com crowd."
Okay, Draco, I'll bite.
How, in your alternate monetary universe, is taking money from Citizen A and giving it to Citizens B through Z in any way counterinflationary?
Because the government, as the exclusive controller of the fiat currency, is both an infinite source and infinite sink of the currency.
The money paid to Citizens B through Z is simply created by fiat in order to give it to them. The government could do this indefinitely, but creating money and injecting it into the economy is inflationary.
This is counterbalanced by taxing citizen A and destroying the money to prevent it from remaining in the economy.
Look up Modern Monetary Theory if you want to learn more.
Republicans in office should be punished at the ballot box for ignoring unemployment
We could end unemployment by having the government hire every American. Presto! Full employment.
Now, where did I put my hat?
That would be more fruitful than the outright kleptocracy the GOP is trying to muscle into existence. During a Dem president too. That takes balls at least.
Tony|4.5.11 @ 11:01AM|#
"That would be more fruitful than the outright kleptocracy the GOP is trying to muscle into existence."
What's your record, Tony? How many lies have you posted in one morning?
You are like a 19th century scientist struggling with the wave-particle duality of matter.
Or perhaps I'm wondering how you're planning to turn all that lead into gold.
We should have a government shutdown, the government should layoff all non-essential workers and put on hold all non essential programs and then fire the non-essential workers and shut down the non-essential programs since they are non-essential.
Draco, are you proposing that whatever the government does with taxes, spending, borrowing, whatever, just doesn't matter?
I kind of see some of your points, but I can't see where you are going with them.
(1) The government creates all the money. OK, sure, trivially true by definition.
(2) Money can take different forms - cash (really, demand notes), longer term notes, bonds, etc. OK, yeah, they are easily convertible in a liquid market, so sure.
(3) The government could just print all the cash it needs, but has to soak up some of the extra cash via taxation, and convert some the rest of it into different forms by selling bonds and stuff.
At this point, I think you start getting into an area where you are effecting real people and the real economy, and not the digital economy inside Bernanke's and Geithner's computers.
So what do you think their manipulation of the bond markets, monetization of debt, and so forth will, or will not, have an effect on the real world?
Why wouldn't they just, I don't know, stop printing money if they wanted to be all counter inflationary. Or better yet, stop borrowing it. Seems to me we could address the fiat inflation before the actual value inflation comes into play.
the outright kleptocracy the GOP is trying to muscle into existence. During a Dem president too. That takes balls at least.
That's Boooosh for you; he's like omnipotent or something. I suspect some sort of mind control ray. How else could you explain the Demos' complete lack of resistance to the crony capitalism?
the radical kleptocratic Republican wishlist
Speaking of unserious...
But what if the federal government shuts down, and nobody notices.
thank you