What Are Those "Anarchists" at the Republican Party Up To Now?
Touting votes for Head Start


The National Republican Congressional Committee wants you to know a Democrat in a congressional district they consider winnable for Republicans had the audacity to vote against Head Start. From a campaign mailer this afternoon:
Today, Julia Brownley turned her back on the million-plus low-income women and children who are enrolled in Head Start programs across the country. Brownley voted against legislation that would provide immediate funding for Head Start to ensure that women and children across the country would be able to continue participating in the program that provides crucial health, education, nutrition and social services to families.
"Julia Brownley's vote against low-income women and children in California is shameful, and she owes the millions of participants in this crucial program an explanation for why she thinks it's acceptable to cut their funding due to petty partisan politics," said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek.
Julia Brownley Voted Against H.J. Res 84, the Head Start for Low-Income Children Act. (H.J. Res 84, Roll Call #530, 10/8/13)
H.J. Res 84 Would Provide Funding for the Head Start Program Which Provides Crucial Health and Education Services to Familes. "Head Start programs provide comprehensive services to enrolled children and their families, which include health, nutrition, social services and other services determined to be necessary by family needs assessments, in addition to education and cognitive development services." ("Head Start Services," the Office of Head Start, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)
In Fiscal Year 2011-2012, Head Start Programs Served 1,142,000 Children Aged Birth To 5 Years Old, As Well As Pregnant Women Throughout The Country. ("Head Start Program Facts Fiscal Year 2012", the Office of Head Start, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)
House Republicans have passed nearly a dozen bills since the partial government shutdown restoring everything from parks funding to the NIH. Hardly the "anarchists" known communist (joke!) Harry Reid called them. The partial government shutdown started in part due to a desire to defund and delay Obamacare. Based on the first week, it looks Obamacare is doing that on its own just fine. Instead, Republicans have spent the week going on record on the things they don't want to see cut. So with the federal government spending about twice what it brings in, what exactly are Republicans prepared to fight to cut? Or is it all about "winning" the government shutdown to make your side look better, with profligate spending planned until further notice either way? In that case, what would stop Republicans from giving in to Democrats if they took the Nation's advice on budget demands?
Oh, and as for Head Start, it doesn't really work.
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
Head start is like a Golden Calf to these half wits. There is not a single bit of credible evidence that shows Head Start has any lasting effect on kids. But they will never back away from throwing billions at it.
That's because the idea of promoting the school readiness of children ages birth to 5 from low-income families by enhancing their cognitive, social and emotional development is so noble that it *cries out* for more and more funding.
Wait a second. The government is shut down. How is it possible that the website did not disappear behind a sign that says,"gone fishin'," or something to that effect?
What is "Due to the lapse in government funding, only web sites supporting excepted functions will be updated unless otherwise funded. As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at http://www.usa.gov", chopped liver?
Look, do you want principled policy stances or do you want to win the shutdown?
I want to win the policy shutdown stance.
Well now you get nothing.
As long as it's not a wide stance.
Ed, IANAJ, but in the future please include source links for the quotes, or when one is not available, note that and state where you obtained the quote.
From a campaign mailer this afternoon
Yes, I cannot read good.
That's why I support funding for the Center for Kids who can't read good
...and who want to learn to do other stuff good too.
Your support for that program doesn't go too far enough. Did you all know that NoVaHockey wants to spend less than every penny in the US economy making sure that children are able to read such classics as Dreams of My Father, The Audacity of Hope, and the 14 volume set of the collected speeches of Barack Obama?
Obviously he's some kind of dirty child-hating anarchist and we should all spit on him.
How many volumes is once you edit out all the "ummms" and "uhhhs?"
Tri-fold pamphlet....and that includes the artwork.
For those who have read The Foundation, who doesn't think of the analysis of the imperial legate's speech that Hardin had done when thinking about Obama's speeches? You know, where it turned out that all the legate had said during his visit to Terminus when reduced to actual meaning ended up with. . .nothing?
There isn't a political speech goes by without thinking of that.
And I sometimes wish I could get a Seldon-style big picture about where things are leading. Obviously things can't just get worse and worse without end. Something's got to change at some point, and when it does, it will be hindsight-obvious, but danged if I can even guess at what it is now.
That's true. Obama just epitomizes a universal concept--politicians either say nothing, lie, or do both.
He is energetic only in evading responsibility.
They'll fill the empty spaces with sounds of the forests, sea shells and gentle ocean waves.
Does the NRCC know no shame? To use a program that the government itself admits is a failure to paint a Democrat as heartless is going too far. These tactics don't bode well for stopping the universal Pre-K train that is rolling down the tracks.
Of course they know no shame, but, regardless, the universal pre-K train is coming like it or not. Is this cynical, slimy and dishonest? Sure. Welcome to politics. The GOP can play nice or they can win every once in a while.
What does it matter? We're Libertarians & free marketeers, nor Republicans. The only Rs that will win there are Big Giv't Rs, unless you get someone willing to lie as Brownley's opponent, but this will just erode trust in the (R) people over time.
We're Libertarians & free marketeers
Someone tell Matt Welch
this will just erode trust in the (R) people over time.
Really benefitted Detroit.
When I was a young, impressionable yute, the only 'anarchist' I knew was a young lefty Chomskyite.
Now that Chomsky has essentially disavowed anarchism for the strong, guiding hand of the Right People In Charge, I find it interesting how the times have changed.
You're overlooking the connection between anarchy and big government. Real, face-eating, zombie-uprising anarchy occurs when the Right People are put in charge.
(1) They centralize power in as few hands as possible.
(2) The governed lose the memory of what it was like to be responsible.
(3) Then, some less competent oligarchs come along. There is a crisis or two and the elaborate machinery comes crashing down.
(4) All of the people who could have prevented this catastrophe from happening have been effectively lobotomized by the state, so (a) they sit and wonder why this is happening or (b) they're so far gone they barely notice.
(5) Either way, a vacuum forms, the barbarians make Odoacer the King of Italy, and life is never the same again.
(6) John Galt gets tortured
(7) That gets parodied on Lost.
Hyperbole is the default mode of the modern politician. Complete and total hyperbole. They've always done it, but words don't even have any meaning coming from them at this point. Everything they say can be roughly translated to TEAM GOOD OTHER TEAM BAD.
Just made up a joke, thanks to you, Epi.
How is John Boehner like a function used throughout sciences and engineering.?
They're both hyperbolic tan gents.
That's just terrible. I'm sure Hugh approves.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Awesome.
Go forth and sin no more.
Why? Just cos you said so?
I knew there'd be a triggy response!
If there's a real Satan, the source and focus of pure evil across all of the universes, you're infinitely worse than him!
And moderate Republicans wonder why anyone would think they deserve to be in a lower ring of Hell than even the worst democrat (from his press conference today alone, I see Dante placing Obama up to his nose in a river of shit, but that's about the fifth or sixth ring, right?).
Well they're currently throwing global markets into turmoil because they refuse to do a simple vote on an obsolete and pointless technical matter.
We could only be so lucky if Republicans focus their concern on reelection over their ideological obsession with stunts like this. There've been a few times in the last couple decades that it seemed as Republicans were pleasuring themselves at the thought of just pulling the trigger and letting the whole thing collapse (the better to implement their unpopular and bizarre mini-government utopia).
The scary thing right now is that the only lose-lose scenario for Obama is if the debt limit is reached. (He would have to invoke shaky legal authority to prevent default, guaranteeing impeachment, or let it happen, guaranteeing calamity.) So what's scary is that the rightwing messaging factory, as perversely immune to facts as ever, has programmed its congressbots and punditbots to claim that hitting the debt limit is no big thing. Boehner has no desire to go over this cliff (which is why it's not entirely self-interested for him to try to retain his speakership). So presumably he'll allow a bipartisan vote on the debt ceiling and is just using up time. But I just wonder how many in his party want to see it all burn.
I wasn't aware that tax revenues are too small to cover interest payments on the debt.
That's the kind of delusional rose-colored glasses thinking I referred to as scary. Exactly why would we take that risk over simply extending the debt limit? For what purpose?
Well, if we have to borrow money to pay interest on our debt, we must be in some sort of financial trouble. Has Tony any ideas how to get out of this trouble?
Hint: Spend more.
Raise taxes.
How does that sound? You don't like it? You don't want to raise taxes by one single cent? That right?
Oh, you must really not give a shit about debt then but are using it as an excuse to claim your social agenda is required.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm. Not raising the debt limit does not equal default unless political leaders intentionally make it so. As as Homple says, if we have keep borrowing money just to avoid defaulting on previously borrowed money, how can you seriously think the government has no debt problem?
I agree. The debt limit is stupid, because the idea of debt so large (in the trillions of monetary units), that we should need a debt limit is stupid. Lets just get rid of the debt limit and continue to not spend additional money on frivolous things at the same time.
Or, in other words, a debt limit of 0.
No, a debt limit of ?
None of you have the slightest clue about anything.
Or they could use tax revenue to pay interest on the debt, fund SS, Medicaid and other things on a case by case basis. All without "defaulting" on the debt, but I get it. The narrative only supports two options. You know that this isn't a revelation, but it elicits emotions. You probably sound super smart to your Facebook friends. I'm won't judge though, because I'm feeding a troll...
Even if that were a plausible action, it's not clear that it's legal or feasible, and it would absolutely not calm markets. And it wouldn't save the country any money either.
"The markets" hardly give a shit. People who hold government bonds, who are idiots, deserve what they get.
What principle says that a fringe political faction in the US gets to harm people in entirely different countries because they didn't get their way on a domestic healthcare law?
The principle that I do not owe anything to anybody who was stupid enough to give money away to a poorly run organization that was already massively in debt. Regardless of the health coercion law.
stupid enough to give money away to a poorly run organization that was already massively in debt.
Slow down there cowboy. Thbese are different times. We have a structural bailout structure law or something. Everyone gets paid.
"Well they're currently throwing global markets into turmoil because they refuse to do a simple vote on an obsolete and pointless technical matter."
If it's obsolete and pointless, why does it cause planet wide turmoil?
It's obsolete, pointless, and, thanks to the new willingness of Republicans to threaten global market stability for political reasons, extremely dangerous.
Since when did you start caring about "global market stability"?
Since forever?
I am for global government.
If the stability of global markets depends on perpetual growth of American government debt, global markets are in deep shite.
If the stability of global markets depends on perpetual growth of American government debt, global markets are in deep shite.
Shhhhh.....you're going to upset thockpuppet.
It's in our interest for global markets to depend on American economic vitality. We are rapidly squandering our influence via the deployment of sheer Republican mind-blowing idiocy.
If you want to advocate for the US becoming a middling power in the world somewhere akin to the retarded stepsibling of Canada, be my guest.
If global markets depend on ever-increasing American debt, then the world deserves the zombie apocalypse.
Well they're currently throwing global markets into turmoil because they refuse to do a simple vote on an obsolete and pointless technical matter.
Passing a budget is "obsolete and pointless?" Well then, I guess I can just leave this here.
I believe I was referring to raising the debt ceiling--the debt ceiling being hardly a fundamental aspect of an economy.
Holy shit.
Hey! Its Jud Crandall!
I was thinking Tyne Daly.
You be nice. Cagney or Lacey, I can't remember which, was on Burn Notice.
Wasn't trashing anyone; she just bears a resemblance to TD.
TD played Lacey. Sharon Gless (Cagney) was on BN; finished by setting off a bomb "for my boys."
I'm ever so glad I've already seen the last episode, because that's an evil reveal.
I like that show. It's like Magnum meets MacGyver. Didn't actually watch the latter, but you know what I mean.
Yikes -- what's that thing on top of her head???
I'm thinking she's cranium balancing a Lhasa Apso.
You know, I think what the Republicans in the House should've done was refuse to fund enough spending activities (including ACA) to come in under the debt ceiling. Then state that they're picking things not to fund to avoid spending more than we can afford and are willing to discuss what else could be cut instead. Making it not just about Obamacare but about stopping the fiscal madness.
Sadly, they don't really want to cut spending.
Sadly, they don't really want to cut spending.
Of course if they did really want to cut spending that would make them unpopular which Matt Welch reminds me is really important.
You know, I think they could actually do some ass-kicking if they'd go all balanced budget on America. I think plenty among us crave Dad saying, "No, you can't have that. Sorry."
What on Earth makes you think a balanced budget will be popular?
I mean the shutdown is unpopular and the GOP is nowhere near advocating a balanced budget?
Different issue about the GOP, because they aren't even close to arguing for a balanced or even remotely sane budget.
What makes you think the Dems will pass a remotely sane GOP budget? That would lead to a shutdown that is unpopular. The only way to avoid shutdowns is to pass large budgets.
And I doubt an actual sane or balanced budget will poll well.
It's all academic, because neither party wants to cut spending, balance the budget, or, really, slow the train as it heads for the cliff. The GOP might be marginally better, sometimes, but not enough to really change anything.
So why is Reason carping on polls then? Anything politically smart during this shutdown is not very libertarian.
Because I think the idea that we can spend infinite money without consequences is so opposed to the common sense of every day life that a majority secretly think we need to do something about it. And yes, I know there's cognitive dissonance around this, but I also think it's true, nonetheless .
Yes a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget except in times of war could pass easily. The rhetoric would be easy; you'd only need a grassroot popular demand for it.
Good thing the war on terror is never ending!
Seriously though it's a nice thought but in reality that amendment would be very difficult to pass, at all levels, because of all the vested interests.
It may act to build a further incentive to starting a war.
Joe & Greg those are valid arguments assuming the voting public is asleep.
If the voting public cares at all they will easily see through the bullshit & the cronies will get voted out.
If politicians incur debt on non-military programs during war they'll be seen as stealing from the taxpayer & the taxpayer's children to fund their little toys. It won't win them re-elections.
All we'd need to do is remind people where that debt money comes from, and that it doesn't make sense to allow government to willingly go over-budget for inessentials when we don't allow ourselves to do that in our personal lives.
If people can't do this simple task to look out for their own best interest how could they ever survive in a de-regulated free market society? I think we're underestimating people's intelligence.
What about the fact that balanced budgets are racist?
"Oh, and as for Head Start, it doesn't really work."
Which is the only thing that matters and is totally ignored by the brain-deads.
So how's that libertarian era coming along? Either commit political suicide or cave in with the hopes of Rand Paul winning in 2016 and having enough GOP congresscritters willing to commit political suicide to pass a mild libertarian agenda by 2018.
I don't care what happens. I just want to enjoy seeing everybody get what is coming.
You're not thinking long-term enough.
Care to explain?
Libertarianism is on the rise and isn't going away soon. Ten years ago they used to be fringe because Libertarians aren't good at the demagoguery game. It is the economic literacy/sound economic policies and general philosophy of libertarians that attracts people to them/us. We're gaining and we've never really had to use what I call the "sellout" tactic. Sellouts can have wide appeal but can risk losing confidence because they have no hard beliefs, no integrity. At this pace it's inevitable people will be voting Libertarian by the middle of the 21st century. Maybe Canada can join in on the fun too.
Also, the fact that America is close to bankruptcy is going to help as well. Even actual defaulting on the debt would help. The future doesn't look bright for big spending big gov't people.
I'm not sure. If California and Detroit can become California and Detroit, and there's no "a-ha" moment where people finally stand athwart the ongoing policies and yell, "stop", I'm not convinced that America defaulting on its debt would even raise an eyebrow on the "spend more, forever and ever, amen" crowd.
It would all somehow be blamed on Proposition 13.
What's wrong with California?
Total Democratic control of government and it's now fiscally and economically sound. Imagine that.
There'd need to be a huge cultural shift.
I think ignorance of libertarian/small gov't principles & economic illiteracy is so important. People know very little of economics & put too much trust in gov't. Gov't & politicians hand out bad economic advice & the public believes them uncritically.
I saw this happening in nutrition as well. The food pyramid & people who promote its general guidelines are decades out of date. A major reason why so many people are sick today is because of the food pyramid.
Because the gov't says fat is bad wheat is good etc. people, even the media, assume they know what they're doing.
At this point anyone who wants to learn can learn about evolution-based medicine/nutrition and Gary Taubes wrote a book all about how shitty modern nutrition research has been. The information is out there, people are figuring it out but gov't influence in the healthy-eating industry has given the gov't position a false sense of legitimacy.
This is a problem as gov't stance on economics is almost always anti-capitalism from marxism to Keynes.
People trust the gov't is doing the right thing economically and decide not to get educated too much. Teaching good economics could at the minimum make things like Detroit & Calif. impossible. The educated left-wing liberal view in my opinion would jump from supporting socialism to supporting the negative income tax/guaranteed income (can anyone who believes in government welfare think of any arguments AGAINST it?).
To give you an example of how people distort things to the level of absurdity when they believe the government's stance is the only valid stance, look at this:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com.....n-seconds/
That woman was motivated to find her own answers and like many she displays in my opinion an excellent level of intelligence, critical thinking & intellectual curiosity.
She's just a random person.
Other people could be like her, only in economics. But, look at the part where she says the media lied about the true source of her success.
Even Buzzfeed lied about how she lost the weight and implied she exercies & counted calories. Not only is this false, doing this is literally counter-productive. But, hey, this ties in with the intelligentsia's view of how to eat healthy, which is tied to the Gov't-approved Food Pyramid. So people looking for good info are screwed.
This is the challenge with teaching economics101.
The good news is I would use this somewhat convoluted argument to argue that Detroiters & Californians aren't irredeemable idiots, they're just too trusting of gov't.
Well, except for the Californians living on the wrong side of the fault line...
I know youz was talking about how calling Obama a name detracts from any valid argument may have of him. But no matter how sound an argument is, the left won't accept it. It's all "manufactured" you see.
So, with that, I've created an excuse to offer my own nickname for the President. After today's speech I ordain him:
Oblahma.
How's the view from the kiddie table of political discourse?
When you're not calling names you're whining like a little bitch. We are all eagerly anticipating an actual thought.
Why are you even here?
To destroy you.
Try harder.
[checks thread, backs out slowly]