Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"GOP plans to shut down the government next year"..."it's fanaticism about a disaster in the making"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:27 PM
Original message
"GOP plans to shut down the government next year"..."it's fanaticism about a disaster in the making"
IRRESISTIBLE FORCES, IMMOVABLE OBJECTS.... Following up on yesterday's item, it's worth considering in more detail exactly what a member of the House Republican leadership said yesterday about GOP plans to shut down the government next year.

Right around the time President Obama was presenting his vision for the economy at a White House press conference, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), the vice chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, spoke to disgraced lobbyist Ralph Reed's right-wing confab, and offered a vision of his own.

If Republicans take back the House, Westmoreland said, they would use their new majority to force a budget battle akin to the fight staged by former Speaker Newt Gingrich with President Clinton and shut down the federal government. Westmoreland cautioned that he was fully aware that such a move would close down hospitals for veterans and shut down National Parks. But, Westmoreland argued that taking down the government is worth "the pain" because health reform and government programs are like a "gangrene" that "need to be cleaned out."


Westmoreland wasn't characterizing a shutdown as some kind of drastic step he hopes to avoid; he was describing a shutdown as something he's actively looking forward to. Indeed, as far as Westmoreland is concerned, a shutdown would be a good thing. Mixing metaphors, he specifically told his receptive audience: "There's going to have to be some pain for us to do some things that we've got to do to right the ship."


And remember, when Westmoreland brought up the last GOP government shutdown, urging right-wing activists to stand with Republicans the next time, the assembled far-right activists applauded. The right, in other words, is already looking forward to this.

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen released a statement late yesterday, explaining, "The Republicans' plan to shut down the government would mean than millions of seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks or Medicare coverage and America's veterans wouldn't get the benefits they earned. While American troops are in harms' way, it is outrageous that Republican leaders would even consider shutting down the government."

By last night, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer had an item on the WH blog, noting that Westmoreland is only one of many prominent Republicans pushing the notion of a shutdown. "While the President is offering a vision about how to move the country forward and help middle class Americans and small business owners," Pfeiffer said, "Republicans in Congress are busy telling partisans and Republican party activists to get prepared for the same stalemate and gridlock they brought the last time they were in charge."

I mention this for two reasons. The first is that the mainstream American electorate probably has no idea just how radical the Republican agenda would be next year. By one credible estimate, the GOP now has about a two-in-three chance of claiming a House majority, and it's very likely that much of the country will ask themselves, in early 2011, "Wait, we voted for what?"

The second is that the debate over who'll be blamed for a shutdown is practically over before it starts. There was talk in some circles that the Republicans might force presidential vetoes and say it's Obama, not the GOP, who shutdown the government. That strategy appears to have been abandoned altogether -- now both sides already agree that it's Republicans who are actively promising and looking forward to shutting down the federal government, regardless of the circumstances.

Yesterday, Westmoreland seemed to take pride in the very idea. That's not reluctance about a scenario leaders should want to avoid, it's fanaticism about a disaster in the making.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025622.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. It'll work as well this time as it did last time.
When it broke Gingrich's political back.

Todays Republicans (and Democrats) don't seem to be able to learn a fucking thing from history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Republicans controlled Congress for how many years after that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I believe the answer is OVER A DECADE.
Edited on Sat Sep-11-10 10:28 PM by Pirate Smile
Excuse me for shouting but I do think people need to recognize that they shouldn't assume control will just flip back quickly. It didn't even flip back after the jerk-offs impeached the President for something most people thought was ridiculous.

Think about it - Republicans shut down the government (1995) AND Impeached a sitting President (1998) for reasons the majority of the American people disagreed with AND they still retained control of the House for EIGHT MORE YEARS!!!

They were able to get away with bloody murder and still keep control of the House of Representatives yet Democrats are "unenthusiastic" so we are willing to just let it slip away? Hell.No.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. You're missing the lesson
when you pander to the corporate right incessantly- while insulting, back handing or backstabbing your own constituencies, you not only dampen enthusiasm, but you blur the contrast between the parties- which plays right into Republican's hands.

Dems did it throughout the 90's and early 00's and have been doing it again for the past 20 months.

Consequently, the current predicament shouldn't surprise anyone.

The question of course is whether the leadership will ever learn?

On that point, here's a quote from a notable "villian" today:

How did Reagan, even as a big business apologist, hold the 54 GOP Senate seats and only lose 26 House seats in the mid-term election of 1982? Reagan was, in the words of Jim Kessler, “facing 10.8 percent unemployment, 6 percent inflation, a declining GDP, an approval rating barely above freezing and the indignity of having drastically increased the budget deficit over the previous year after running as a fiscal hawk.” Maybe it is because enough voters saw the “Gipper” as knowing what he stood for and showing steadfastness and better times coming soon, in comparison to the wavering, concessionary posture of the then-majority Democrats in the Congress.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. They are so sadistic those republicans. They love people being put out or outright hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Republicans are fools. It didn't work out for them last time
I can't imagine that it's going to work for them this time. HCR may not be the most popular thing in the world right now- and probably won't even really be able to viewed very favorably until it is fully implemented- but the Republicans are not going to win the political battle to actually shut down the government (and hopefully it's because they won't regain the majority and thus won't even get a chance to try it). The public, as misguided as they often are (largely because of Republicans), don't necessarily want government to come to a screeching halt even if they don't agree with everything the federal government is doing. Are the Republicans REALLY o.k. with throwing even MORE people out of work, causing people's Social Security checks to be delayed, and their Medicare coverage to be interrupted???? :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinymontgomery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Do they still get their pay check?
If so that should be shouted from the mountain top that they are not going to pay us put they will keep the money themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Remeber the death panels. Well, Republicans seem to plan on killing the elderly.
Edited on Sat Sep-11-10 09:58 PM by Ozymanithrax
"The Republicans' plan to shut down the government would mean than millions of seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks or Medicare coverage and America's veterans wouldn't get the benefits they earned. While American troops are in harms' way, it is outrageous that Republican leaders would even consider shutting down the government."

Why does that son-of-a-bitch want to kill my mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vixengrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. A view from 1995--
http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-18/

The administration has promised that Social Security and Medicare checks will be paid on time. However, if the second shutdown isn't over by Thursday morning, veterans' benefit checks for more than 3.3 million people would be delayed, said Ken McKinnon, spokesman for the Veterans' Affairs Department. The checks are supposed to be mailed December 29, but the department has neither the money nor the personnel to process them.

Passports also may not get processed, but as in November, postal service will not be affected and vital workers in public health and safety will stay on the job. The six-day closure that ended on November 19 was the longest in history and cost the government an estimated $750 million, more than half of it in retroactive salaries to workers who were sent home.

Sen. John Breaux, D-Louisiana, a member of the Finance Committee, predicted Monday the Senate would pass a temporary measure to keep the government in business through the end of the week while negotiators continue working. "I think it's real possible it'll happen today," he said. But it was not clear whether the House would approve such a measure.


But there's no telling whether it would be handled the same this time around. I found a fascinating (well, to me, since I'm a state employee and find civil service stuff fascinating) history of Social Security Admin which includes details of the effects of the massive furloughs and interruptions of day-to-day operations--many people still got their guaranteed funds, but it wasn't pretty:

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ssa/ssa2000chapter5.html

The four-day furlough severely impacted SSA’s ability to provide the quality service that the American people expect. The following activities are examples of basic services that were curtailed or denied during the November shutdown:

· About 112,000 claims for retirement and disability benefits were not taken (about 28,000 per day);

· About 212,000 applications for Social Security numbers were not taken (about 53,000 per day);

· About 800,000 callers were denied service on SSA’s 800 number (about 200,000 per day); and,

· About 5,000 previously scheduled hearings were canceled and decisions related to another 7,000 hearings that had already taken place were not written.

The second shutdown was the longest in history and presented new challenges to Agency management. When the threat of a second shutdown surfaced, SSA determined that the trust funds and benefit programs could not tolerate another interruption of claims-taking activities. Based on the experience during the November lapse in appropriations and the loss of four full days of production time, any further interruption in service would have a devastating long-term impact on SSA’s ability to process Social Security, SSI and Black Lung claims. The Agency was still attempting to recover from the effects of the November furlough. Therefore, employees in direct service positions would remain operational, while staff support employees would be furloughed. When the partial shutdown began December 16, 1995, about 55,000 Agency employees, most of whom processed claims and/or provided direct public service, were told to report for work. A total of approximately 11,000 staff employees remained furloughed.


I'm absolutely not being dismissive of fears that a shut-down (especially when today's current crop of wingdings include people who can't even admit Unemployment is Constitutional) will negatively impact millions. But even the most subnormal, humanity-hating, Atlas-Faps, brain-washed, Reagan-worshipping, furry-palmed, cross-toting, knuckle-dragging, shallow-assed, slope-skulled, legume-accounting, floccinaucinihilipililificating, slack-jawed arrogant Teatard should know not to mess with Mee-maws. Or that whole party really will find itself up Shit Creek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. I was in the Navy at the time, and we did not get a paycheck...
on time because of SOB Repubilcans pulling their shit.

When you live week to week with no leeway, being late with a paycheck has a huge affect on a family. There are no guarantees that this crop of asswipes will back down. It fits with their goals of destroying the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vixengrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I have a feeling that they wouldn't, which is why I hope
not too many people decide to "send a message" to Democrats, and instead vote from their own recognition that even a slightly weak Dem candidate at least isn't a heartless thug--which too many of these TeaBeasts seem to pride themselves on being. What they would end up voting for is worse--governmental paralysis. If it wasn't a government shut-down that affected thousands on thousands of gov't employees and disrupted much-needed services*--it would be stupid-ass hearings like the witch-hunts enacted against the Clintons, which distracted from the real business of government.

Hell, I'd just like to get a crop of people in the damn Congress who could see fit to review and approve judicial appointments effectively. What we've got right now is a shame, and I'd love to think Americans could learn from history. The shut-down and the fake-ass "Impeach Clinton" bullshit--totally useless gambits occurring in recent memory.

Reason I don't think Americans in general learn from recent history? I keep seeing this Newt Gingrich has-been loser on my teevee. There should be more of an odor of infamy about him than there is.

* And come to think of it, they have amply shown themselves culpable for trying to stand in the way of reforms for veterans and healthcare funding for the first responders suffering from the events on 9/11--say what? They'll say they love troops and vets and all that, and fetishize 9/11, and then not even have the decency to take care of people? DAMN! Whay aren't Dems running hard against this two-faced stuff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. If we have it on video that stuff sound likes the 'Air Force One snub' type material
If those people who are bragging about this now are in congress when they try to pull a shutdown like this it'll be a great way to hit back at the GOP and gain the high ground, especially if someone creates an ad of congressional republicans eagerly bragging about how they're going to have a government shutdown and starts running it on TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maccagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. This time I seriously doubt the Prez will start a fling with
needy and immature intern the very night the gov'mint takes it's ball and goes home. The cable news whores will eat this shit up with a spoon though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. How will the People get their SS CHECKS...?? etc...? The GOP is a Bunch of WHACKOS
Never ever vote RED

They have no EMPATHY

THEY ARE SOCIAL BULLIES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nancy Waterman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. This would make an awesome campaign ad for Dems
It is time for us to start scaring people with how crazy the GOP has become. They want to privatize Social Security, end Medicare, shut down the government...

Westmoreland cautioned that he was fully aware that such a move would close down hospitals for veterans and shut down National Parks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Yes. There is plenty of ammo. We just need some awesome ad makers to put it together just right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
14. There's a strategy that will guarantee them victory in '12.
Hell, nothing pleases the American public more than seeing their unemployment, welfare, medicare, Social Security benefits stopped for political reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. Their goal is to show government doesn't work....
Edited on Sun Sep-12-10 02:23 AM by andym
They want the govt out of everything except the military basically. By shutting down the govt they basically make government not work. By planting the seed in people's minds that government doesn't work, they hope to keep power for years....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. ...Yet another reason to get out and vote for Democrats....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
17. k&r
this makes differences among Democrats seem petty by comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
18. They want to drown the country in a bathtub and make a snuff film of themselves doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
21. The constitutional enemy within eos: lock, stock, and barrel; point, game, set, match, and
championship. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
22. Obama is not Clinton
My understanding is Clinton called their bluff, and Gingrich was surprised by it (he thought Clinton would fold). I tend to think Obama would fold due to his behavior over the past year and a half, and I worry what that means as far as what he will give up in order to appease the GOP.

I'm not bashing Obama (I voted for him, donated money, volunteered and will do the same in 2012), but standing up for himself and his principals isn't a strong suit of his. So I do worry what will happen with this in 2011.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC