Since [some of] the unaffordable GWBush tax cuts expired, the budget deficit has been in [slight] decline.
These actions are permitted under the current budget process. Threatening default is part of the power of the House. You agree with that, right? I think it’s unwise, but it’s incorrect to say it’s improper use of congressional power.
Permanently or temporarily? Unemployment peaked out around 10% nationwide a few years ago, and in CA it was over 10%. The world didn’t end. If it were temporary suffering to enact long term reduction in government, I may go for it - depends on the details.
Not really germane to this thread, but many people advocate for smaller government. It’s not a fringe position.
That’s where your argument fails, because there isn’t a single person in the US opposed to that.
I think you’d be (unfortunately) surprised.
“Profiles in Courage” has the best discussion of this topic I’ve read. In the early portion of the book, the guy who was ghostwriting for JFK tackles the conundrum that elected leaders face: are they supposed to follow what their constituents want, even if it is stupid? Or are they sent to Washington to exercise judgment, sometimes break with their electoral base, and work to inform and change people’s attitudes?
The rest of the book is about individuals who knew when to listen to their constituents, and knew when not to. However, what you’ve presented here, and what the angry Tea Party Caucus espouses, is that a handful of lunatics should be able to run the country into the ground because two or three million voters in their districts demanded it.
That’s not leadership. That’s not conscience. That’s foolishness, pure and simple.
Then the rules should be changed to prevent this from happening. Until then, the people doing this are acting as their constituents would want. Else they can be voted out.
Who’s voting their conscience? Who’s voting at all?
What’s happening is a whole lot of not voting. The rules were changed to put all of the power into the hands of one person, by letting that person decide what gets to be voted on.
Arguably Boehner is voting - both for himself and on behalf of his party. If they wish to change it they can change the rules.
There’s no rule or law about elected leaders needing to have the guts to apply common sense and act like an adult. Which is a good thing for Michelle Bachmann and Steve King’s political careers, but not a good thing for the country.
Remind me to throw this back at you next time there’s some irresponsible complaint about Obama: “Sure, you think the President is acting like a dictator, but arguably he is voting - both for himself and the 310 million people he represents.”
All Hail President Boehner!
The rule I’m talking about is the one where the House controls budgets being put forth. The other is that only Boehner can bring bills to the floor. Those two things are the proximate cause of the shutdown. Once can be changed via constitutional amendment. The other I’m not sure, a vote in the house for their own internal rules?
I will 
Please call me on it if I say otherwise.
The House doesn’t “control” budgets. The Constitution says that revenue bills shall “originate” in the House, “but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
There was a rule that would have allowed Democrats to force a vote on the Senate proposal, but the Republicans changed that rule on September 30 specifically to guarantee that there would not be an up-or-down vote that contradicted the will of the Tea Party.
Amazing, care to explain how the Republicans did that all on their lonesome?
They have a majority in the House.
This is what I said, right? * “Controls budgets being put forth”*
I understood “put forth” as meaning something greater than the bare requirement that the House act first. I guess that isn’t what you meant, so let’s chalk that one up to ambiguous language that has now been clarified.
Did you look at the cite?
Yeah I read it. It reads like a mad Democrat though.
It is still looking like they are creative in how they thwart the Democrats, within the rules.
That rule is a procedural rule I that could be changed back, if the Dems ever re-take the house.
And thwarting the Democrats is the important issue. Not governing, not keeping the government open, but thwarting the Democrats is job one. No wonder nobody likes Republicans.
Why would they? Like the nuclear option in the Senate, once changed it is unlikely it will ever be changed back. When Democrats retake the House, you really couldn’t complain if they move to shut Republicans out completely. They would be foolish not to.
So, I don’t understand the question.
But if you’re okay with Republicans changing these rules “within the rules,” I guess you’re okay with Senate Democrats doing away with the filibuster by using the nuclear option?
Only the second one is. The house did originate the bill, and the Senate made amendments and sent it back, just like they’re allowed to.
The second rule is so new the ink isn’t even dry. It’s a rule written and intended to result in a shutdown on this very topic. Written and passed by Republicans.