Well, it looks all but unavoidable that the federal government will shut down the day after tomorrow and there’s even a possibility that the federal government will default. I’ve already given my opinion: I think the actions by the House Republicans are bad politics and bad policy.
As I have been pointing out almost from the inception of this blog, moderation is the essential virtue of a republic and, frankly, I’m beginning to despair for the survival of the republic. This morning on the various “talking heads” programs what I’ve mostly seen has been a mass exercise in special pleading. Their refusal to compromise is stupid, harmful, and traitorous. Our refusal to compromise is practical, principled, and patriotic. I honestly don’t see how the republic can survive without a mutual willingness to compromise.
I don’t relish the idea of real shooting revolution but sitting here in Chicago it looks to me that it’s already under way. I think the simplest explanation for the violence that’s been going on in South Side neighborhoods here is that the police have given up on those neighborhoods and people there are taking matters into their own hands. The gangs are an alternative form of government. That the civil authorities are more concerned about producing the appearance of concern rather than materially changing the situation is an indication of how desperate the situation has become.
I certainly appears that many do not care what effect their actions have on the country’s future. Suggests to me they’re planning for a post-United States world.
Yes, self-righteousness on display is worrying, as is much of the hyperbole. I don’t think we’re close to a shooting revolution yet, but clearly the pendulum is swinging that direction.
Even more worrisome, this shutdown is entirely the result of political bickering with no concern for the economics of the situation. The data tell us private spending is slipping and sudden, massive reduction in government spending can only increase that trend by an order of magnitude. What conclusion can one draw but those forcing this are sociopaths? They appear eager to add another 15 percentage points of disemployment.
James Taranto lays out the background for the GOP dissent in the following manner:
While the MSM and other Obama supporters see the GOP as the intransigent ones, many see that trait as being more applicable to Obama and his WH ‘bubble people.’ After all, he is the one calling the speaker and declaring, “I will not negotiate…” which kind of translates into, “Do it my way or else.” Also, Harry Reid and the democratically controlled Senate are the ones languishing until 2 PM Monday to take up (probably table) the bill that the House voted on this weekend.
If you stall and come in late on the day before the government is in jeopardy of closing down, isn’t that on Harry Reid? Why is his arrogance for refusing deal with the House’s response, in a timely manner, acceptable, while the House’s exercise of it’s checks and balances role not? Are the republicans only deemed ‘good guys’ if they capitulate and meekly follow orders from Obama and Reid — a fiscal policy in which they believe is unwise and unfair to many many Americans to implement? Lastly, why can Obama unilaterally change aspects of Obamacare, such as extending the start date for one segment (big business), but rightously hold fast for all the rest of the people? Doesn’t the House have any legislative power?
It is purely a function of voter fraud. Lying to voters is fraud. The main fundamental point of Obamacare was that is was not a tax. Voters relied on this confirmation. If it had been explained as a tax it would never have been passed. All the rest is just noise.
“The gangs are an alternative form of government.”
Maybe Mario Puzo will write a book about it.
“The gangs are an alternative form of government.â€
See, Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
…”moderation is the essential virtue of a republic and, frankly, I’m beginning to despair for the survival of the republic.”
The definition of republic is the following:
A country formed as a republic means that it rejects having the powers of governance in the hands of a monarchy. We have actually strayed from the tenets of being a republic for some time now, where the government acts at the behest of it’s citizens. Remember the whole finite enumerable powers clause in the Constitution?. Instead, the power of the Presidency has grown, through the years, until we now have an administration whose “transformation” intention was voiced at the very beginning of his first term. Such a ‘transformation’ has evoked a more unilateral, strident form of governance dictated primarily by the democratic party, starting with the enactment of the PPACA and spreading to other parts of the social progressive agenda promoted by this administration.
Consequently, a rebuttal movement rose up, fashioning themselves after the original colonial anarchists, the current day ‘Tea party.’ They have, nonetheless, been maligned, their purpose/premise distorted, and discriminated against by the MSM and the IRS. However, ironically these are the very people trying to save the republic not destroy it, by calling for more disciplined fiscal management, smaller government, and continued citizen representation in this country’s governmental affairs. And while their tenacious opposition is vehemently scorned by establishment politicians and social progressives, even to the point of being called ‘racists,’ they are demanding what the framers of this country hoped would never change:
Isn’t that what the House is currently doing, operating within Constitutional periments (separation of powers), while exercising it’s Constitutional duty to adequately represent people’s concerns regarding government overreach and suppression (checks and balances)? And, doesn’t the real root of obstruction originate from those who refuse to talk or genuinely debate the issues, which seems to be the POTUS (absent from the domestic policy scene except for cameras and campaign type speeches) and Harry Reid’s Senate, who refuses to entertain alternatives vis-a-vis a “give us what we want or shove it” kind of negotiating attitude?
Further, jan, the government has “shut down” before and the world didn’t end. And the Dems have played the same game.
It could be horrible, though, White House tours might be curtailed and Yogi the Bear might not have a park ranger for a few weeks, but rest assured Family Obama will go on millions and millions of dollar vacations, and government employees and union faves will be exempted from ObamaCare………only the little guy gets the benefit of ObamaCare’s new proctological “exam.”
Taranto is an idiot. He forgets that there was an election in 2012, after the one in 2010. If people wanted the ACA overturned they could have voted for Romney and the GOP. They did not. Bare bones majority? They need 60 Senate votes, representing 67% of the population. The IRS? Really? A few small Tea PArty groups were affected. All of the big ones were approved. These few social welfare groups were going to influence 10 million votes? Sigh.
Steve
Drew,
Yes, they say that the panda camera will be shut down! Another crisis in the making!
Steve,
Reynolds discredits Victor Hansen, and you think Taranto is an idiot. Both men are intelligent and very knowledgeable in their fields. They just have a very different perspective in how to navigate politics, and what works pragmatically versus what appeals to the ideology of social progressives.
steve lecturing on idiocy. Amusing.
I’d like to be serious for a minute. (angels sing and trumpets blare)
Speaking of idiots. I know I’m in the presence of an idiot, or someone woefully inept at negotiation, when I hear that the Congress is “behaving like children.” That’s a bonehead, or someone reduced to a parrot, simply citing talking points from media shows.
In actuality (and separating the true neanderthals on each side) they are engaged in a blood sport negotiation with the rules we, as an electorate, have given them.
The true idiots are the electorate, and a media I increasingly view as trending towards Mongolian Idiot status. We don’t like the process or players? Elect better people. Watch more informed media. Who watches C-Span vs CNN? (a mindless Ashley Banfield comes to mind as a perfect example of, well, mindlessness) No one. No one would repeat the line ‘behaving like children’ if not planted in their simple minds. But we are a nation of ill-informed and lazy sheep. We get what we deserve. Watch man-in-the-street interviews.
I turn to those at this site. I may think certain people here are wrongheaded, or ill informed or even bizarre at times. But it is not lost on me that they care, and take the time to form opinions. It puts them light years ahead of the general electorate. Whether I might agree with you, or you with me, at least I know you are not of the pathetic ilk of, say, “The Obama Girl.”
I, of course, am always right. Because I am smarter, better informed, have superior insight and experience, and gosh darnit……people like me.
I’ll leave it to the reader to tell when I went back into kibitz mode.
Drew mentions negotiation. Here’s the math on that.
Also Steve, Romney was personally eviscerated before he even won the republican nomination. Obama won, not because of people’s distaste for the ACA, but because of his clever calculation of dividing people, and strategic campaign style, as well as the general culpability of an electorate who is too lazy to inform themselves about what is at stake with their vote. It’s just so much easier to believe someone’s words rather than do your own research into the facts.
I’m not sure what your point is there, Andy.
If you distill what I do and get past all the functional investment skills (those are just a given) it comes down to negotiating, and evaluation of people – management talent. Its what separates the doers from the wannabees. That’s what I know like the back of my hand and, although I don’t have an arrogant bone in my body, do better than 99.9% of the general population. (that will get me in trouble)
I hope you didn’t take Mr. York’s column seriously. It was lightweight. He’s commenting at a high school level.
Drew,
My point was that this isn’t merely about D vs. R or conservative vs. moderate Republican. Were it not for factionalism, the CR would have been passed long ago. The piece explains why a minority in the house is driving the bus. If you think it’s “lightweight” then what is your alternative analysis?
That said, I agree that ultimate responsibility belongs with the electorate – we’ll see what they decide in 2014.
Also Drew, what’s going on in the Congress has very little to do with negotiation because there is almost no interest in actual negotiation (there is, however, a lot of interest in the appearance of negotiation). This is about counting coup and saving face.
Powerline submits a few of the left-sided letters they’ve been receiving demonstrating the incendiary tactics being used, as well as how the other side sees the shutdown.
Here’s one from the prez:
First off, the House has repeatedly stated shutting down government is not their intention (although there have been more than a dozen such shut-downs since the administration of Jimmy Carter). What the republican controlled House wants to do is soften the blow of Obamacare, which is decidedly unpopular and unwanted by the people. With three amended CR bills sent back to the Senate they have dropped their original defunding mechanism, and are simply going for what Obama has decried about the one-percenters for years — enacting fairness. While the president has pressed for economic fairness in order to raise taxes, the GOP is asking for the same fairness in the implementation of Obamacare. Do under the peons, small businesses and individuals what you have done for big business, Congress, the elites and to 1200 favorite others getting waivers — put the implementation of Obamacare on hold for a year, for everyone, until it is sorted out and better organized.
After all, individuals and small businesses can’t afford lobbyists to champion their interests like the ones Obama granted relief to. And, it’s apparent that people are still ill-informed, reluctant if not outright scared of Obamacare. In fact the most popular question people ask on the government healthcare site is how to be exempted from the penalty of not signing up for Obamacare. What’s happening here is that Harry Reid and the democratic government are using a crow bar to get their way, while calling the other guys, fascists, racists, terrorists etc. for steadfastly being a voice of the people. How bazaar is this!!!
Secondarily, that line about “defaulting on our bills” used by Obama, is a flat out lie joining all the other dishonest statements he’s made over the years. There will be no default occurring during a partial shutdown. This is the same fear-mongering rhetoric he whipped out when attempting to stomp down the possibility of sequestration from happening — a policy created by his WH and then blamed on the republicans.
To moveon.org membership:
This is just one of the caustic references made towards the tea party, in that same letter. And, John Hinderracker’s response is succinct and spot on!
Yeah, the outrage of dissent towards policies in which you don’t agree! I guess the 1st Amendment only selectively applies when it is first sanctioned by Obama.
jan- Maybe the electorate was stupid in 2010 when it elected the GOP to run Congress. Maybe they got fooled by divisive GOP tactics and ” not because of people’s distaste for the ACA, but because of his clever calculation of dividing people, and strategic campaign style, as well as the general culpability of an electorate who is too lazy to inform themselves about what is at stake with their vote. It’s just so much easier to believe someone’s words rather than do your own research into the facts.”
The facts make it clear that Taranto, and you, are wrong. The 2010 election was not about Obamacare. A minority of voters in exit polls said they wanted it repealed. The polls showed that even while people voted for the GOP they did not trust it more than the Dems. Writers like Taranto make up stuff that you believe.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/03/a-clear-rejection-of-the-status-quo-no-consensus-about-future-policies/
Steve
I enjoyed reading the Pew Poll posted above Steve, although my take away was no where near what your’s was.
True the raw percentages did not indicate everyone had HC repeal on their mind, as they went to the polls. Strong motivating factors, though, did center around economics in general — the deficit and jobs, which do tie into the HC law because it’s enactment plays into both of these concerns. Many think that HC will ultimately prove to be more expensive, raising the deficit. And, then you have employers’ uneasiness about expanding business, adding employees, cutting hours of existing employees creating a part time employment rage,, etc. So, I think it’s kind of disingenuous to only single out repeal percentages, in concluding that the ACA passage had little to do with the people’s discontent with government, and why they voted for a party they didn’t like much over one they apparently disliked and trusted even less.
Even more damning for the acceptance of the PPACA are Pews numbers demonstrating people’s growing dislike for bigger government. And, when you dovetail that sentiment in with the fact that the HC industry comprises 17% of the economy — something the government now has it’s fingers into — how can you possibly reason that this is something the people are happy with, and didn’t have much to do with how they voted in 2010? Also Steve, do you remember how many State Houses were relieved of democrats and taken over by Republicans — an historical feat for a party that is continuously trying to improve it’s brand.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Andy. Its ALL a negotiation, despite the appearance of not negotiating.
I’m not trying to pull rank or be disrespectful, but do you do much negotiating in your line of work? What is happening is CLASSIC negotiating posture.
Drew,
So is what we are seeing in Congress how things work in the VC world?
I’m willing to be swayed on this point, but it will take more appeals to expertise. If you can flesh out your argument a bit, that would be helpful.