How is "shutting down the government" a winning strategy?

[Simplicio]

@SmartAlecCat

The issue is still not “the majority of the house”, but rather “the majority of the majority” right?

If it comes down to it the sane republicans can join with democrats and pass something the republicans want that the democrats can live with even if they never get the intransigents.

I think that’s what will happen. Boehner doesn’t want to go down in history as Newt 2.0, and he’s show a willingness to pass things with mainly Dem votes before. They’ll pass a budget with Obamacare repeal, Harry Reid will use it as toilet paper, and then Boehner will go back and pass a budget he can get the Dems to sign on to.

@Chessic Sense

Sigh. There is an insane faction of the Democratic party that doesn’t want to admit that there exist places like Kentucky and Alabama. All politics is local. The “insane” faction of the Republican party that’s shooting for a repeal are doing exactly what the very real, not-very-secret majority of their districts want.

You guys can go on and on about “the majority of Americans,” but what’s that got to do with the gentleman from Mississippi?

Except the current strategy doesn’t really have any chance of actually repealing Obamacare either (and to the extent that it damages GOP electoral prospects, probably makes an actual repeal in the future less likely). Certainly one can imagine voters in Mississippi might think the damage done by shutting down the gov’t might be worth it to get rid of Obamacare, but its hard to imagine said voters think the downside is worth a purely symbolic effort that doesn’t get rid of Obamacare.

[Oakminster]

Shutting down the government is a stupid move, and is rapidly turning into a “boy who cried wolf” deal for the GoP. Seems like they bring this crap up every year lately, nobody believes they’re actually going to do it, and if they did do it, the fallout will bite them in ass. Might not cost them control of the House, but could generate enough ill will for the party to cost them seats in contested districts on both sides of the Hill.

[Bricker]

@jsgoddess

I think by how you wrote this that you are claiming equivalence between the two sides. I don’t know if it’s fair to say “Pay for programs the legislature has agreed to pay for” is either an extreme OR a principled position. It’s just what I would expect of a legislature. (If you weren’t trying to paint a portrait of equivalence, never mind.)

This seems to relate to the debt limit, but not the budget.

Correct?

In other words, I agree that refusing to raise the debt limit is, in effect, not paying for programs they’ve already voted for, but refusing to pass ne t year’s budget is refusing to continue to vote for those programs. Perfectly acceptable.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

[R]efusing to pass next year’s budget is refusing to continue to vote for those programs. Perfectly acceptable.

I don’t know what we mean by “acceptable” here. If the government cannot operate until the majority in both houses of Congress agrees with every law on the books, then the government cannot operate.

ISTM, in order to make this argument, you need to contend that Obamacare is somehow especially repugnant on some principled basis.

[deltasigma]

Bernanke warned today about the dangers of a govt shutdown or not raising the debt limit and emphasized in no uncertain terms the fact that the fed is limited at this point in what it can do to stimulate the economy in the face of govt dysfunction - although he didn’t phrase it that way of course. I’m also quite sure it was one of the considerations for not cutting back on the $85B in monthly bond purchases that are currently adding to quantitative monetary easing.

You will recall that part of the reason that things have not improved as much as expected is the sequester which was the result of the last budget impasse. The right now wants to keep those cuts in place except maybe for defense and some other pet areas (and their own districts of course) and the middle and left want something a bit more rational. Obviously Bernanke isn’t willing to bet that rational will win, or at least that’s my reading of things, because were there any confidence otherwise, any confidence that fiscal policy could get back on some kind of rational footing and pick up some of the slack from monetary policy, I doubt the extra stimulus would be needed.

[Little_Nemo]

@jsgoddess

I think by how you wrote this that you are claiming equivalence between the two sides. I don’t know if it’s fair to say “Pay for programs the legislature has agreed to pay for” is either an extreme OR a principled position. It’s just what I would expect of a legislature. (If you weren’t trying to paint a portrait of equivalence, never mind.)

No, I’m sitting off on the sidelines and from my point of view I think they’re wrong. But I’m trying to present how the people who are doing this see their own actions.

It’s always a bad idea to think that people who are doing something you believe is wrong share your beliefs and feel that their own actions are wrong. You don’t have to agree with what other people believe but you should try to at least understand what they believe.

[wonky]

@Little_Nemo

No, I’m sitting off on the sidelines and from my point of view I think they’re wrong. But I’m trying to present how the people who are doing this see their own actions.

It’s always a bad idea to think that people who are doing something you believe is wrong share your beliefs and feel that their own actions are wrong. You don’t have to agree with what other people believe but you should try to at least understand what they believe.

I’m sure they do view themselves as principled. I disagree with the rest of your characterization, however. I don’t think they think the other side is less resolute, nor do I think they think the other side will be blamed. I think they are viewing this as individually risk-free and are not feeling particularly beholden to the Republican party, so if the party as a whole takes a hit, that’s no big deal.

That’s why I called them radicals, upthread. I think they are making the perfect the enemy of the good in almost all ways.

[adaher]

There is no intention to shut down the government, except among some Congressmen in safe districts. What this is is simply another way to keep the ACA in the headlines and remind voters which side everyone is on. And who knows, Democrats cave sometimes. In a game of chicken, never assume the Democrats won’t be the first to bail.

[Bridget_Burke]

Crazy Ted Cruz has been riding the Defund Obamacare or Shut Down the Government horse on his way to the Presidential Campaign. Now he’s changed his tune…

WASHINGTON – House Republicans are fuming at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for conceding that the party’s efforts to repeal Obamacare aren’t going anywhere in the Senate – and leaving the House to keep fighting over it anyway.

Cruz, a tea party favorite, is one of the most vocal proponents of defunding the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s health care reform law. He’s spent months championing the cause. But on Wednesday, as House Republican leaders unveiled their latest plan for sinking Obamacare – tying a measure to defund the law to a must-pass resolution that keeps the government running – Cruz thanked House Republicans for their fight, and said they’re on their own.

“[Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid will no doubt try to strip the defund language from the continuing resolution, and right now he likely has the votes to do so,” Cruz said in a statement. “At that point, House Republicans must stand firm, hold their ground, and continue to listen to the American people.”

Aides to top Republicans in the House, where GOP leadership has already been struggling to keep the party together on the measure, were beside themselves. And once granted anonymity, they didn’t mince their words.

“We haven’t even taken up the bill and Ted Cruz is admitting defeat?” fumed one senior GOP aide. “Some people came here to govern and make things better for their constituents. Ted Cruz came here to throw bombs and fundraise off of attacks on fellow Republicans. He’s a joke, plain and simple.”

I love it when they begin to turn on each other.

[Drum_God]

@Bridget_Burke

Crazy Ted Cruz has been riding the Defund Obamacare or Shut Down the Government horse on his way to the Presidential Campaign. Now he’s changed his tune…

I love it when they begin to turn on each other.

My mom said she caught a glimpse of Cruz on FoxNews claiming that the GOP has an alternative healthcare reform bill. It’s best feature is that it’s only 200 pages long! She said that the interviewer asked a few questions about this bill, but when it became clear that Cruz didn’t know what he was talking about, they moved on to other subjects. So, does anyone think this Reader’s Digest-care bill exists anywhere outside of Cruz’s imagination?

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

I don’t know what we mean by “acceptable” here. If the government cannot operate until the majority in both houses of Congress agrees with every law on the books, then the government cannot operate.

ISTM, in order to make this argument, you need to contend that Obamacare is somehow especially repugnant on some principled basis.

“Acceptable,” means that both the House and Senate, every year, must agree on funding, and that agreement is not – or should not be – a rubber stamp, carte blanche approval of every single program approved in prior years. The funding of government programs is not a “one-way ratchet,” where once approved programs are immune from further review.

Nor do I agree that the standard is “repugnance.” You can oppose funding a given program by saying, “It’s a good idea, and I wish we had the money, but ahead of it in terms of priorities are better ideas.” No repugnance needed.

[Bricker]

@Drum_God

My mom said she caught a glimpse of Cruz on FoxNews claiming that the GOP has an alternative healthcare reform bill. It’s best feature is that it’s only 200 pages long! She said that the interviewer asked a few questions about this bill, but when it became clear that Cruz didn’t know what he was talking about, they moved on to other subjects. So, does anyone think this Reader’s Digest-care bill exists anywhere outside of Cruz’s imagination?

Undoubtedly you have made every effort to present this proposal as fairly and neutrally as you can.

[aNewLeaf]

That’s not an answer to the question though. Have you heard of this alternate plan?

[septimus]

@Bricker

In other words, I agree that refusing to raise the debt limit is, in effect, not paying for programs they’ve already voted for, but refusing to pass ne t year’s budget is refusing to continue to vote for those programs. Perfectly acceptable.

In other words, it’s OK to push Grandma down the staircase, but not if you’ve first smiled and invited her to go.

Is your distinction intended to be a legal one or a moral one?

[deltasigma]

That is why businesses have no confidence in govt - because they have no confidence in there being any kind of continuity. Once you establish programs that people rely on, you establish a type of social contract with the implication being that those programs will be there going forward. Reliance btw is a well established legal principle. I’m not saying of course that it creates a binding contract though. I’m saying that the principle is similar and should be accorded similar weight when making changes, e.g., defunding programs.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

“Acceptable,” means that both the House and Senate, every year, must agree on funding, and that agreement is not – or should not be – a rubber stamp, carte blanche approval of every single program approved in prior years. The funding of government programs is not a “one-way ratchet,” where once approved programs are immune from further review.

Nor do I agree that the standard is “repugnance.” You can oppose funding a given program by saying, “It’s a good idea, and I wish we had the money, but ahead of it in terms of priorities are better ideas.” No repugnance needed.

But this isn’t what we’re talking about here. This isn’t members of Congress saying they oppose one program and want to shut down that program (which they could do if they had a majority). This is members of Congress saying they’re going to shut down the entire government because they don’t like one program. That’s not legislating; it’s taking hostages.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

“Acceptable,” means that both the House and Senate, every year, must agree on funding, and that agreement is not – or should not be – a rubber stamp, carte blanche approval of every single program approved in prior years. The funding of government programs is not a “one-way ratchet,” where once approved programs are immune from further review.

Nor do I agree that the standard is “repugnance.” You can oppose funding a given program by saying, “It’s a good idea, and I wish we had the money, but ahead of it in terms of priorities are better ideas.” No repugnance needed.

@Little_Nemo

But this isn’t what we’re talking about here. This isn’t members of Congress saying they oppose one program and want to shut down that program (which they could do if they had a majority). This is members of Congress saying they’re going to shut down the entire government because they don’t like one program. That’s not legislating; it’s taking hostages.

Moreover. In our bicameral system, you don’t get to change the law by winning one of the two houses of Congress.

It is true that one House can sabotage the funding for a program that it does not have the political support to properly end. Why is that considered responsible law-making?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

… You can oppose funding a given program by saying, “It’s a good idea, and I wish we had the money, but ahead of it in terms of priorities are better ideas.” No repugnance needed.

Did they make this argument when the bills were presented? Did they lose that argument?

However, your criticism of word choice is valid. Bad, Richard Parker, bad! Go lay down by your water dish!

[Bricker]

@Bricker

This seems to relate to the debt limit, but not the budget.

Correct?

In other words, I agree that refusing to raise the debt limit is, in effect, not paying for programs they’ve already voted for, but refusing to pass ne t year’s budget is refusing to continue to vote for those programs. Perfectly acceptable.

@septimus

In other words, it’s OK to push Grandma down the staircase, but not if you’ve first smiled and invited her to go.

No… those are indeed “other words,” but those other words don’t particularly recapitulate my words.

Is your distinction intended to be a legal one or a moral one?

Legal.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

But this isn’t what we’re talking about here. This isn’t members of Congress saying they oppose one program and want to shut down that program (which they could do if they had a majority). This is members of Congress saying they’re going to shut down the entire government because they don’t like one program. That’s not legislating; it’s taking hostages.

So, under what circumstances can they legitimately stop funding a program?

Let’s say that the previous Congress appropriated $1 million to study parakeets. Now the House has changed hands, and the Senate has not. The new House leadership believes the parakeet program is a waste. The Senate is beholden to the powerful Tropical Bird lobby and does not.

Must the House continue to agree to vote for budgets which fund the parakeet program?