Government Shutdown

GOP "Anarchists" Now Talking About Reopening…National Parks?

|

National Review reports on plans by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to push small continuing resolutions (CRs) funding a bunch of junk at current levels. The idea, apparently, is to drive home the notion that the GOP didn't want to shut down the government; it just wanted to defund or delay Obamacare. Here's Lee: 

"I think we can do the exact same thing with a number of noncontroversial spending bills that fund aspects of government that Americans overwhelmingly support, Americans acknowledge that we need, and that are completely unrelated to Obamacare."

"My plan, in other words," he continued, "would involve setting up segmented continuing resolutions, appropriations measures that would keep the funding going at current levels to various areas within government, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, military construction, C.J.S., which includes funding for the Department of Justice, the federal court system, the F.B.I., NASA, and the National Weather Service, for example."

More here.

Politico says this sort of thing is similar to

a plan frequently suggested by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a freshman conservative firebrand who wants the House to send the Senate "mini" spending bills to chip away at Democratic messaging on people being unable to enter national parks, for example.

Got that? National Parks are rising in importance, as some sort of "essential" government service to Tea Party "wacko bird" Republicans? Here's the AP reporting that the House is in indeed planning to vote on reopening national parks.

Unlike some of my Reason colleagues, I didn't think that Cruz's extended health-care speech was a bad thing or a mistake (indeed, to the extent it was a long-winded peroration on the proper role of government, I think it even was pretty smart). And I don't share fear of a government shutdown that's designed to delay Obamacare and/or reduce federal spending by wringing compromises out of a president who refuses to negotiate because the Democrats had a a majority in 2010.

But in a Washington where 95 percent of Department of Education employees were sent home today because they are "non-essential," I'd think twice about simply moving to restore pre-shutdown funding to the government. It would be nice to dust off actual budget proposals and start talking about what the government should do and how much (or how much little) it should spend in pursuit of those goals.

What sort of teachable moment is it when freaking Republican "anarchists" (Harry Reid's term) are tripping over themselves to restore full funding for the Depts. of Interior, Educatiion, Commerce, and Labor? Or blithely re-upping the Transportation Security Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the FCC?

It's teaching a lesson, that's for sure, and it's one about how different Republicans are from libertarians, especially when it comes to determining how we should be spending. And from the American people, too, 76 percent of whom think the government already spends too much and 70 percent of whom oppose raising the debt ceiling.

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.

140 responses to “GOP "Anarchists" Now Talking About Reopening…National Parks?

  1. So wait. Republicans are now “anarchists”? You mean like the hippies that protested the Vietnam War in the 60s?

    I’ve been saying for a while now, democrats have become the authoritarians that they protested against in the 60s. Now, THEY are the ones over 30.

    1. Have you been hiding under a rock? Boehner has been caving in to the Tea Party anarchists for months now, according to the MSM.

      1. Harry Reid has used the label repeatedly, and if Harry says it’s so, it must be so.

        1. Reid wouldn’t know an anarchist if you shoved Mikhail Bakunin up his ass.

          1. Maybe someone can write up a cowboy poem what explains it to Harry.

    2. I just want to add my story. I get paid over $87 per hour working online with Google! I work two shifts 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. Its by-far the best job I’ve had. I follow this great link http://cuttr.it/ukvczrq

  2. FUCK that. The only national funds I want to see diverted towards parks are funds to form a committee to privatize all of them.

    Or to buy enough napalm to burn the fuckers to the ground. I’d get behind that, also.

    1. At a minimum, I contend Federal Parks are illegal takings of State land, so the land should be returned to the States gratis to do with what they will.

      1. You can’t do that NL, because the southern states would immediately set their parks up as Hanging Gardens, where it’s required for you to lynch one negro per visit as the price of admission.

        In fact, since all right-thinking people already knew that, and yet you advocated it anyway, that actually makes you a racist, straight up.

        1. Ah damn. Someone tell Joan Walsh.

          1. Tempted, but I won’t. Best to keep things in house.

        2. And a neoConfederate, to boot.

      2. All federally occupied lands should be returned to the states.

    2. Whoa whoa whoa. Have you stopped to consider all of the weed growing in our national parks? Do you really want to napalm the dreams of budding entrepreneurs?

      1. Those entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the protection provided by vast lands at taxpayer expense, as opposed to those of us (but not me) who take the risk of producing a superior product in the controlled environment of our (but not my) own property.

      2. …weed growing in our national parks… budding entrepreneurs…

        Heh-heh, what you did there? I see it.

  3. It’s teaching a lesson, that’s for sure, and it’s one about how different Republicans are from libertarians, especially when it comes to determining how we should be spending.

    You mean different, like the libertarians advocating not doing anything until the GOP takes the Senate? Those libertarians?

    1. Those ones he said he explicitly disagrees with?

      Reason’s Team Red is the biggest bunch of friggin’ crybabies.

      1. Said the poster that goes Full Butthurt as soon as SuderWelch is criticized. Projection: not just for blue team.

        1. Butthurt != Schooling you in logic.

          1. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Did you die and come back as Shreektard’s protege?

            1. Believe whatever you like that helps you sleep at night, little buddy.

              1. IOW yes, you did. Either that or you decided to be what Tulpa thinks of you.

                1. You’re citing Tulpa for good faith argumentation? Cool story bro

                  1. No dipshit I’m not but don’t let that stop you from pretending I am, which is hilariously ironic by the way.

                    1. Okay amateurs, run along.

                    2. I expect far better insults when I come on reason. I want someone’s parentage questioned. I want someone to throw a hissy fit and start writing in all caps. I want arguments where I can almost taste the searing rage.

                      You two have disappointed me. This was a sub-par effort.

    2. There’s a difference between advocating not doing anything, and advocating not doing things that are pointless, harmful or counter productive.

      I can think of a number of different strategies that the GOP could take that would be far more intelligent and more likely to result in actual policy victories than what they are currently doing.

      1. 1) What are those strategies?

        2) There’s no reason to believe that what they’re doing now is especially ‘counter productive’. That’s mostly just Beltway bullshit.

  4. I’ guess they’ll be sending G Gordon Liddy to my house to force me to buy Obummercare.

  5. Yes, they should, by and large, be returned to the states to run, particularly out west. I think the land run on virgin New Mexico territory has been over for a while now. Damn cattlemen!

  6. Unlike some of my Reason colleagues, I didn’t think that Cruz’s extended health-care speech was a bad thing or a mistake (indeed, to the extent it was a long-winded peroration on the proper role of government, I think it even was pretty smart).

    Steering clear of the cocktail party circuit? Spending more time in Ohio?

    1. I don’t understand what that means.

      1. Nick lives in Ohio, primarily.

        See, SIV thinks his one-note schtick on the Reason Staff is clever. It isn’t.

        1. But it’s accurate.

          1. It isn’t that either. I mean, I like you, actually, but if you’re going to join the COSMOTARIAN-COCKTAIL PARTIEZ yellers, then I don’t see the need to engage you as a serious person.

            1. I don’t see the need to engage you as a serious person.

              That’s what I call a “pro tip”.

            2. Like I give a shit or anyone should. I too rolled my eyes at the accusation of COSMOS and then Welch, Suder, and at times (though not on this occasion) Nick and all of Cato have vindicated the slur. Your butthurt doesn’t change that.

                1. Well my world just got less annoying.

              1. What fucking slur?

                What is it you don’t like about the staff?

                Again, I DON’T get it? You are at a libertarian site busting on libertarians for being libertarian? All you cosmo yellers do realize this is a libertarian site, and not a conservative one, right?

                1. You do realize that Reason isn’t some bible of liberty whose every word is libertarian gospel, don’t you?

                  The editors have differing viewpoints and the contributors even more so (Chapman for example).

                  This magazine/website used to employ Dave Weigel and Kerry Howley. The contributors list runs a gamut even wider than Will Wilkinson and Robert Stacy McCain (who are both on it).

                  1. You do realize that Reason isn’t some bible of liberty whose every word is libertarian gospel, don’t you?

                    So again, which libertarian principles aren’t they living up to?

                    1. Recently Cato has taken to being okay with limiting magazine/clip sizes and expressed sympathy for the military draft. SuderWelch have lately been regurgitating warmed-over Beltway ‘common wisdom’ BS with no critical thinking. To be fair they got off the ‘liberaltarian’ bandwagon some years ago but never should have gone on it.

                    2. Recently Cato has taken to being okay with limiting magazine/clip sizes and expressed sympathy for the military draft.

                      No. They published a point-counterpoint in which one person argued in favor of the draft and was promptly shredded by another Cato writer.

                      Cato’s been wishy washy as all hell, but whenever someone brings this up, they always seem to leave out the important fact that it was specifically published in order to stir up debate and another writer for Cato rebutted it.

                      They’ve published literally dozens of articles against the draft (see here and here) but people constantly ignore this and bring up an article that was explicitly published as part of a point-counterpoint.

                    3. Was the pro-draft person a member of Cato? If not, I withdraw that point.

                    4. Was the pro-draft person a member of Cato? If not, I withdraw that point.

                      I’m not entirely sure. Here’s the thing: The article was from Cato UNBOUND not their actual public policy website. Here’s the description of Cato Unbound:

                      Monthly topical discussions between libertarian and non-libertarian scholars selected by the Cato Institute for participation.

                      Taking articles from Cato Unbound and holding them against the Institute is unreasonable. Cato Unbound exists for the express purpose of argument between libertarians and non-libertarians. I do disagree with some points the actual Cato Institute has made recently, but many of the attacks on Cato that I see stem from things published in Unbound, which exists solely for debate and does not represent the Institute’s positions.

                    5. “Was the pro-Draft person a member of Cato?” No. It took me three seconds to figure this out.

                      The anti-Cato criticisms make no sense to me. None. Do some of their scholars say things I disagree with? Yes. So criticize the individuals. When Cato turns into Heritage or CAP, them I’ll be worried.

                      http://www.cato-unbound.org/co…..nuel-gobry

                    6. Cato’s been wishy washy as all hell, but whenever someone brings this up, they always seem to leave out the important fact that it was specifically published in order to stir up debate and another writer for Cato rebutted it.

                      They’ve published literally dozens of articles against the draft (see here and here) but people constantly ignore this

                      When shit spatters on your ice cream you don’t wipe it off and say that it’s still good tasting ice cream (you might, I don’t) – you throw it away.

                2. I’ll show you the math:

                  Objecting to specific Republican actions =
                  Objecting to ALL Republican actions =
                  Hating Republicans =
                  Hating limited government

                  And if I need to spell it all out for you:
                  Hating limited government +
                  Existence of DC office +
                  Absence of Lew Rockwell quotes +
                  Megan McArdle is REALLY TALL =
                  COZMOTERRYENZ

                  1. Ooh we got lots of straw lots and lots.

      2. Some regular commenters here, feel that Welch, Suderman, and Gillespie are taking un-libertarian stances on some issues, and are too critical of the Conservative/GOP stance on some issues. The commenters feel the writers are doing this because they are being influenced by the Washington DC power elite. Access to the power elite occurs at cocktail parties. Gillespie, a resident of Oxford, Ohio has not been in DC, tippling with “the right people”, and discussing “the right viewpoints”.

        1. You know who else didn’t hang out in Washington DC…

        2. As long as they talk about cutting government spending and protecting the Bill of Rights at those cocktail parties, I’ll count them as allies.

        3. Some regular commenters here, feel that Welch, Suderman, and Gillespie are taking un-libertarian stances on some issues, and are too critical of the Conservative/GOP stance on some issues.

          Which issues are they NOT libertarian on? Furthermore, libertarians disagree with conservatives on nearly 50% of their stances. That’s what makes them libertarians. Otherwise, we’d all be conservatives.

          1. It’s not just a matter of stances but of priorities too.

            1. It’s more a matter of nuance.

              When you think that the beltway bubble conventional wisdom is insightful and worth repeating – you’ve probably been in the bubble too long and may be a cosmo.

              Case in point, Welch actually said that the republican willingness to shutdown government over Obamacare would likely prevent them from ever retaking control of the Senate.

              Which is just laughably preposterous to anyone with any perspective at all. And not really something that a libertarian would worry about anyway.

  7. Unlike some of my Reason colleagues, I didn’t think that Cruz’s extended health-care speech was a bad thing or a mistake (indeed, to the extent it was a long-winded peroration on the proper role of government, I think it even was pretty smart). And I don’t share fear of a government shutdown that’s designed to delay Obamacare and/or reduce federal spending by wringing compromises out of a president who refuses to negotiate because the Democrats had a a majority in 2010.

    Ah, now you’ve done it. Reason’s TEAM RED brigade is so confused right now. “BUT… COCKTAIL PARTIES?”

  8. Got that? National Parks are rising in importance, as some sort of “essential” government service to Tea Party “wacko bird” Republicans?

    Well, what would the United States be without our premier National Park System. It’s of the highest national priority to ensure their continued operation. After all, think of the consequences if they were left unattended. They might revert to nature.

    1. Yosemite is even on Google today.

    2. More anarchy, less nation state!

      The principle can be applied to national security in addition to national parks.

  9. This is just fairly astute politicing by Team Red.

  10. I think, all other things being equal, the more focused and less attached to some omni-budget the average spending bill is, the better off we are. If they can stick with this, I think it represents and actual paradigm shift. And I think the best way to get back to pre-shutdown funding is to go back to pre-shutdown procedures.

  11. If the national parks were privatized, then the government shutting down would have nothing to do with the parks.

    1. I think we could say that about everything except national defense.

      1. Just delete the last three words.

    2. ANARCHY! CHAOS!! CHILDREN EATING OLD PEOPLE IN THE STREETS!

      1. It’s like when Goya met Guernica out here!

        1. Blood. in. the. STREETS.

          I had no idea the government had “shut down” till I saw something on TV this afternoon.

          Guess that’s what I get for not depending on Washington for….pretty much anything.

    3. That depends what you mean by “privatized”. The Blue Ridge Parkway is a linear national park and open for business as a ROAD, while the sub-contracted, privately run attractions on government land along it are shuttered because of Washington Monument syndrome. The government is keeping the public portion open and forcing the “privatized” portion to close.

  12. Just turn on the online Panda Cam at the National Zoo, so the bureaucrats have something useful to do at home.

  13. The idea, apparently, is to drive home the notion that the GOP didn’t want to shut down the government; it just wanted to defund or delay Obamacare.

    Well I’m all for stopping Obamacare, but shouldn’t the shutdown be about not changing the debt ceiling law? How about a compromise where the government gets to keep running, but can’t borrow any more than the debt ceiling law allows?

  14. Ima give some credit to TEAM RED shitweasels in congress, cause I didn’t think they’d actually do it. And they did.

    So – good on ya. Keep it up.

    Also – no, fuck you, cut spending.

  15. Also, the ending of “Breaking Bad” did not Cleveland Browns me. I thought it was pretty good.

    About time a series I watch didn’t pull a fucking Cleveland on the final episode….(looking at you fucking “Twin Peaks” and ESPECIALLY “Lost”)

    1. If you watched Lost that long you got what you had coming.

      1. The trouble with Lost was that you had to watch it that long, actually several times, and disbelieve most of Damon’s statements about it, and approach it as a solvable mystery even after it stopped appearing to be such, and have done a lot of background reading & viewing of A.C. Doyle, Dept. S, and other stuff.

        The solution is that to protect a Big Secret (as per “The Lost Special”, after which the show was obviously named), a bunch of people who knew it or parts thereof were to be killed and replaced by lookalikes in the style of The Seconds (but some of them brain-wiped technologically as in Eternal Sunshine to think they were the real thing), but some of the ones who were to have been killed found out about the plot and tried to replace their replacements.

        1. I definitely don’t want to watch “Lost” after reading that.

        2. Um yeah,

          Or the writers were making shit up on the fly to keep the series, and their paychecks, going as long as possible.

    2. The ending to Breaking Bad deserved an A-. It was pretty damn satisfying overall with a few minor flaws. But even the flaws can be explained away well enough.

      1. By “flaw” I assume you mean “something Randian would have done differently.”

        I thought the ending was pretty good. Especially after watching Talking Bad (first time I watched the commentary) and then the show itself a second time.

        So tell us Mr Aspiring Creator and Director, in your infinite wisdom and creativity, what would you have done differently?

    3. -looking at you fucking “Twin Peaks”

      Perhaps not totally fair considering ABC put David Lynch in a rather bad spot with that.

    4. They never provided closure about what exactly White’s original beef was with those rich people, and they didn’t provide details about whether the compound was still full of evidence incriminating the kid.

      1. They never provided closure about what exactly White’s original beef was with those rich people

        Those rich people used Walt’s ideas to get rich. That was several seasons ago.

        1. Yeah, but the show made it look like he had the opportunity to get rich too, and keep fucking that bitch, but he up and left for some reason. The show played it like they were going to reveal what happened, and they never did.

          1. You asked what his beef was. They got rich off his ideas without giving him a bit of credit. Seems like a legitimate beef to me. But you’re right. That subplot could have been fleshed out more.

          2. Walt used to date Gretchen. I thought it was implied they broke up, and she got with Eliot, which made their partnership untenable.

            1. BP has it exactly right. It wasn’t explicitly stated but implied piece by piece.

              1. My impression was, further, that Walt’s whole relationship with Skyler was a rebound. Gretchen – rich, classy, educated. Skyler – waitress at some dumpy restaurant.

                If he ever really got over Gretchen he would have repaired his relationship with Eliot and gone back to Grey Matter. The fact that he never did that proves that he wasn’t that into Skyler, he was just with her to try to pretend that he was over her. Make it look to people like he was happy and successful in life. Because he was still so pissed at Gretchen dumping him for Eliot.

          3. She left him, for Schwartz.
            Duh.

      2. I didn’t like that as well. And the whole spooky mystique with Gus Fring and his past in Chile. Those could have been expanded on a bit I thought, oh well we will never find out now. I also didn’t like how Walt was all of a sudden a ninja in the finale. Subject to a nationwide manhunt, and yet still goes nearly across the country and even goes back to his old home with absolutely no problem. Was the FBI asleep?

        1. Also, they never expanded on how Walt went from working with Gretchen and Elliot to working at Sandia to being a high school chemistry teacher. That is quite the change.

        2. Was the FBI asleep?

          No. They were awake. Right next to the telephone waiting for it to ring. Apparently it only rang when Walt called.

        3. Ugh do we really need every backstory explained? No we don’t and I’m glad it wasn’t.

          1. Yes, that’s the whole problem with ‘The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’ series.

            It’s like Norweigians have some sort of mental problem where they make a movie, and then they have to make two more movies explaining every last little piece of backstory and wrapping up every single loose end of the first movie.

      3. They never provided closure about what exactly White’s original beef was with those rich people

        Er, that was all explained in Season 1.
        Schwatz was his ex-partner, hiw wife was his ex-girlfriend. After she left White for Schwatz, White dropped out of the company out of anger. Schwatz made millions and White ended up and a high school teacher. Now he’s fucking pissed that Schwatz ended up with the girl and the money. That’s his motive. PAY ATTENTION.

        1. Er, Schwartz

    5. About my only complaint with the ending of Breaking Bad is in the closing moments of the penultimate episode. Walter White just happens to accidentally discover that Charlie Rose interview in the 15 minutes between the time he called the cops to turn himself in and the time they actually showed up.

      On a lesser show like Dexter or True Blood, that plot convenience would have been laughed at by millions. But BB is so good no one noticed.

      1. I have surprising coincidences like that in my life all the time.

        1. Me too.

          1. Me three.

            1. What a coincidence!

      2. I thought the point was that he was going to give himself up, but when he saw Eliot & Gretchen on the sow, he realized how he could get his money to his kids, so he went from there.

        1. It also really pissed him off.

    6. About time a series I watch didn’t pull a fucking Cleveland on the final episode….(looking at you fucking “Twin Peaks” and ESPECIALLY “Lost”)

      This is why you plan how a show is going to end and then stick to that plan. There are an awful lot of shows that go 4 seasons too long. For example, the last season of Dexter is one of the worst fucking things that I have ever seen.

      1. I had heard that seasons 7 and 8 of Dexter weren’t that good but the current season was pretty good. That’s too bad it was a favorite of mine. They peaked too early in season 2. Miss you Doakes.

        1. My favorite season was season…I believe 4. That’s the one with the Trinity Killer. The first two seasons were good because of Doakes and the fourth season was good because of John Lithgow as Trinity.

          I don’t know if they changed writers or just ran out of ideas, but the last few seasons were terrible. Dexter is a bit like Batman. He’s only really good when you pair him with a great antagonist, and the last couple years they couldn’t figure out a good villain.

          1. S4 was also really good. S5 was still good and it was kind of a pleasant yin to S4’s crazy yin.

  16. They should spin off the National Park Service as a semi-private entity like the Postal Service. That way the Park Service will never get shutdown, because it can continue to operate on it’s own funds from park fees.

    1. Ah ha ha ha. There’s no way the Park Service makes enough in fees to support the kind of staff it has.

      1. Maybe they need a smaller staff… Haaaa ha ha ha! Yeah right. Government views the purpose of businesses as providing employment because that’s how it views itself.

      2. Neither does The Post Office.

        1. My stepbrother is a postal carrier. He jokes (in an un-funny way) how while they are sometimes willing to get rid of unionized drones like him, management is a job for life. Like if they close an office the manager will still get a paycheck. And then a pension.

        2. This.
          The Postal Service loses millions every year, and still manages to keep operating during a shutdown, because, at least in theory, they have their own operating funds.

          Now in an ideal libertarian universe the parks would all be totally privately owned and operated.
          But in the near term, taking the NPS out of the general budget would keep it from being a political football.
          Imagine how fucking nuts it would be if the post office stopped delivering mail during a shutdown. The Republicans can thank their lucky stars that doesn’t happen. And if they have a few brain cells they will make the NPS operating along the same lines. Even if it DOES operate at a loss every year.

      3. The Park Service doesn’t, but most individual parks do. So if they got rid of the absurd amount of administrative bloat (Like the Park Service office in Lakewood, CO, 2 hours from the nearest National Park) they have, a private company could actually administer them without outside funding.

    2. I am not sure that would help. The Smithsonian Institute, for example, has quite a bit of private funding, yet they too were for some reason (no doubt political) closed down today.

      1. Same deal. Any agency whose fees or private financing cover a significant portion of their funds should be allowed to remain open, maybe at reduced staffing levels.

        It’s a technicality that the funds go into the general treasury and out the general budget.

        Agencies should be compartmentalized with each agency being allowed to keep the fees it collects for use in it’s own budget.

        1. Agreed. I am betting the closings are more political than anything else. They hope tourists who get turned away at the door of the Smithsonian or entrance to a National Park will write angry letters to their representatives telling them to come to a ‘common sense’ solution.

          1. They obviously are.

            Taking down the websites is a dead giveaway. It costs NOTHING to keep the websites up. They are clearly just doing it to inconvenience the public deliberately, to try to pressure the Republicans to cave in.

            1. The website closings are comparable to having your mailman deliver a notice to your mailbox telling you what mail you would have received if the post office weren’t closed.

    3. The NPS is specifically closing the parts that “make money” (SLD).

  17. -Will Ken Cuccinelli Be One of the Hardest Hit by Shutdown?

    In the lackluster Virginia gubernatorial race, the threat of a federal government shutdown could just be the spark Democrat Terry McAuliffe needs to fire up voters against his Republican opponent Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, experts say.

    The two candidates are fighting for votes in the populous northern Virginia region, which is packed with federal workers. A shutdown at the hands of House Republicans inspired by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would disproportionately affect those voters and likely help tip the scale of the close race into McAuliffe’s favor.

    “Approximately half of the families in Northern Virginia have at least one person who works for the federal government ? so it’s tangible,” says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “If you’ve got someone in your family whose job depends upon the federal government to stay open, it’s going to matter to you.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/art…..orial-race

    1. Coochi was losing anyway.

      1. He’d closed to make it almost even. Cuccinelli is a socon jackass in many ways, but he is far and away preferable to that piece of shit McAuliffe.

        Momentum is on his side. I wish someone less horrible was running, or there was some possibility of the libertarian winning, but Cooch is definitely preferable to the alternative in this race.

        1. If he loses, then it makes the shutdown a good thing because it will crowd out babble about the TP candidate losing in Virginia and this being The End of The Tea Party.

  18. “I think we can do the exact same thing with a number of noncontroversial spending bills that fund aspects of government that Americans overwhelmingly support, Americans acknowledge that we need, and that are completely unrelated to Obamacare.”

    Hey, speak for yourself buddy.

    What sort of teachable moment is it when freaking Republican “anarchists” (Harry Reid’s term) are tripping over themselves to restore full funding for the Depts. of Interior, Educatiion, Commerce, and Labor? Or blithely re-upping the Transportation Security Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the FCC?

    Team RED is afraid of unregulated commerce, terrorists, drugz, and teh nipples.

    And you know it’s possible to open national parks in this period by simply sending the employee blocking access home.

  19. But in a Washington where 95 percent of Department of Education employees were sent home today because they are “non-essential”

    Non-essential?

    The entire Department is unconstitutional, and we did fine without it until 1980.

    No enumerated power justifies it.

    Repeal, demolish, rinse, repeat.

  20. I think you miss the point. If this is what I think it is(a strategy I heard described), it is the ‘death of a thousand cuts’.

    Small CRs that fund bits and pieces. The park service, while hardly essential, is a good start, as it takes away a primary Democrat weapon–namely the pictures of closed parks and monuments and the interviews with furloughed rangers–or did you miss that stuff? Because they’re already using it.

    It shows that the GOP doesn’t want a shutdown, shows that the Dems are the ones doing the shutting, and makes it pretty plain that the GOP wants serious, actual negotiations instead of the standard ‘Obama gets his way’ model we’ve been using.

  21. Jack Daddy Frapp says no way man, aint gonna happen

    http://www.GotPrivacy.tk

  22. I believe the Pres has tried to negotiate with the current House majority once or twice over the past three or so years.

    Fool me once…

  23. the problem is 90% of the 70% who think the government spends too much still want the government to pay for everything. And they don’t like seeing sad people on the news if the news wants them to be angry about the sad people.

    This is why the GOP will always be completely half assed about everything and will always get elected over anyone coming close to libertarianism.

  24. We are at a great moment here. The forces of smaller government must seize the day. We are at a point where the government (note no political parties here) has decided what are essential government services. They even made an adjustment for the military. The government cannot agree on any additional spending. I believe that the Republicans should submit a CR until March 31 to keep the government at the current essential levels (government employees now working should get paid).

    Any additional funding for non-essential programs and even these programs WILL go through the regular budget process line-by-line to ensure the necessity, efficiency, effectiveness, constitutionality and faithfulness to the prevailing statute of each program. After all why should the government pay for non-essential things. The default is no funding. This is just forcing government to do its job.

    Any program that is receiving funding currently or is included in the CR WILL go through the same process described above. This will ensure that money spent on “essential” services is not wasted.

    But what about ObamaCare you ask. Before any money is actually spent on insurance it will also need to ensure it necessity, efficiency, effectiveness, constitutionality and faithfulness to the prevailing statute. We all know the problems there.

  25. So sad i missed this epic cosmo vs anti-cosmo discussion.

  26. Only seriously interested people will be warmly welcomed,Thanks,,you have to work using a computer and internet.if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem. I have been working with this for a month and have made over $17,000 already. let me know if you need more here you go —— http://WWW.WORKS23.COM

  27. The government should be forced to do zero based budgeting as corporations do. You start at zero funding and have to justify every dollar allocated in the budget. The government might look very different, but also might be functional and effective at the limited level of responsibilities afforded it by the Constitution.

  28. my friend’s sister makes =$?8?0= an hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was =$?1?2?7?4?1= just working on the laptop for a few hours. here are the findings…

    http://WWW.WORKS23.COM

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.