Here’s a list of all the Democrats who did that yesterday. And then there’s the idiotic shutdown theater at the Veterans’ Memorial. What kind of moron would spend time and effort to barricade something that’s been open since it opened because the government was “shut down”? Stephen Fleming has been live tweeting it, as the vets take their memorial back. As Dan Collins tweets, apparently the Park Police are Obama’s Revolutionary Guard. If only they had tanks to mow down those recalcitrant geezers. Dana Loesch is calling them #BarryCades.
[Update a few minutes later]
Twitchy has a roundup, with a nice pics of the veterans’ trophy.
[Update a while later]
Here’s a story:
“It just goes to show you why we won World War II,” says Honor Flight of Northwest Ohio President Lee Armstrong.
Many elderly veterans, some in wheelchairs, broke through the barriers set up around the memorial, as police, park service employees, and tourists looked on. “The Germans and the Japanese couldn’t contain us. They weren’t going to let barriers contain them today. They wanted to see their memorial,” says Armstrong.
Appalling. And stupid.
[Update a while later]
Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request to see who ordered this stupidity. I’d be unshocked if it came from the White House, but they’ll just hide the records.
And as I tweeted a few minutes ago:
I would say that Park Police to enforce the closure of an open area are the very definition of non-essential personnel.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) October 2, 2013
[Update a couple minutes later]
Confirmed: it was the White House’s idea. But that lying cretin Harry Reid is blaming the Republicans.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Unbelievable. The government is actually spending money to rent #barrycades.
Yet it’s not appalling to vote against providing health insurance for millions of Americans?
If the goal was to provide health insurance for people, they could’ve done it without this craptastic 2000+ page monstrocity. That isn’t the goal and millions of people still won’t have health insurance when this is done.
It does provide insurance for roughly half of the currently uninsured — that’s tens of millions of people. That’s a lot better than what the GOP is offering, which is covering none of them.
Only half of the uninsured? I thought it was supposed to offer it for all of the uninsured.
Typical government promises.
We’ll see Jim, what it actually does when it happens. We won’t need the CBO to tell us what to think.
Yes, we’ll see. The traffic at Healthcare.gov is an encouraging sign.
Jim, my concerns have nothing to do with the demand for subsidized health insurance. The more demand there is, the faster and harder things will fall as far by my reckoning. Remember someone has to pay for that.
Here’s the twin worries I have concerning this particular situation. First, where are the assets coming from to cover the insurance policies that will be issued? Now, what I gather is going on is that insurance is being issued right now which offers more benefits than before at lower premiums than before with almost no evaluation of the increased risk of this new situation. Now insurance does have ok profit margins, but it’s very easy to lose money in the business. What would the point be of these policies, if the people issuing them can’t cover? They might be able to cover for a few years, but what about the long term? Obamacare is supposed to work for more than a couple of years, you know.
Second, I know such matters are hard for you to understand, but have you considered that the Obama administration juiced up the early market? For example, you can take down web servers for a few days to generate the appearance of overwhelming demand. And there are probably incentives for insurers to participate in this market now, but again, will those incentives still be around and be affordable a few years from now?
A better way is to lower unemployment since many of the uninsured don’t have jobs to pay the bills and attacking the factors that drive healthcare costs which Obamcare pretty much ignores.
But we got Obmacare instead which is making the employment situation rather grim and mandates to buy products produced by Obama campaign donors, that will drive costs down…
Jimbo, aren’t you a bit tired from moving all those heavy goalposts? ObamaCare was supposed to insure everyone, and be cheaper than what people are paying now.
At long last, have you no decency? Is there no low to which you wouldn’t stoop, defending Barry Soetoro? Would you be there manning the barrycades to keep the WWII vets away from their own memorial?
And it apparently strips employer health coverage from about half a million children.
I would vote against having my taxes pay for the healthcare of Ameriskanks, Chris Gerrib.
People can’t buy insurance anymore?
“Yet it’s not appalling to vote against providing health insurance for millions of Americans?”
Someone with a more moderate political stance wrote over at NRO (National Review Online) that the Health Care System is already shot through with government regulations and government subsidy (Medicare, Medicaid) and that the Health Care Act is “just the cherry on the top”, encouraging Conservatives to “just chill” about Obamacare and fund the government. That was my sentiment until about 5 minutes ago.
Yet it’s not appalling to vote against providing health insurance . . ., Chris, who around here do you mean to persuade by that statement?
For example, one version of the House Bill was to allow Obamacare go forward but with delay (as if there hasn’t been delay from the Administration on the current Exchanges rollout, but I am sure someone will correct me that the exchange rollout is on schedule to some interpretation of the law), but to remove the compulsion to provide contraceptive pills.
What is the Red Line that Mr. Obama is drawing? “Health Care delayed is Health Care denied! There are millions without insurance, let this thing move forward, now!”
No, the President is using the Bully Pulpit to say, “Deny women contraceptive drugs? This is an outrage!”
Let me get this straight. So the Health Care Act is not about the farmer who lost his arm and had his face smashed, spent a week in the ICU and weeks in the hospital and is without health insurance and the community is raising money for his bills. The Health Care Act is about a woman having to pay-out-of-pocket for medicines that Wal-Mart Pharmacy claims to offer for cheap, whether this medicine is used for family planning or whether it is to treat a medical condition, that a woman somewhere in our society has to pay out-of-pocket for an affordable medication doesn’t matter, that this is a grave injustice? Huh?
So the Health Care Act is not about persons facing bankruptcy because they have to pay outsized medical bills on unforseen events, but it is about correcting an injustice that a woman might need to pay for a medication that a man would never use?
OK, suppose I accept your argument that the Republicans are being total jerks about wanting to impede or delay Health Care? I could be persuaded to that effect, and I have criticized the hard-line Libertarian position here on Rand’s fine, fine site. So Mr. Obama being a complete jerk about the veterans visiting a site in D.C. is OK? Doesn’t that lower him to the same level of childishness as the 30-50 TEA Party members of the Congressional Republican Caucus? Or is the President being only semi-childish because he is only offending octagenarian WW-II veterans whereas the TEA Partiers are putting the real hurt on people with medical need?
So Chris, you are OK with the President being a jerk and offending people who had laid their lives on the line for their country fighting Facism because this being a jerk is in service of a nobler cause than turning back . . . yeah, Godwin and all of that? Is that what you are saying because I don’t want to misstate anything here . . .
Regarding the WWII memorial – what part of “shutting down government” are you not understanding? The National Park Service is responsible for security at the site, and when I was at the memorial they maintained park rangers there for that purpose. Now that they don’t have funding, are these rangers supposed to be there as volunteers? Or are we supposed to take money from essential departments (like Defense or air traffic control) to pay for rangers? Seems to me that if you shut down non-essential parts of government, that means you close and lock the door. And last time I checked, troops in Afghanistan were more important than park rangers in DC.
The last House proposal I saw was to defund implementation, delay the individual mandate by a year, create a vague “conscious clause” allowing employers to impose their religious values on their employees, and exempt Congressional staffers from Obamacare. (Under Obamacare, all large employers are required to provide insurance to their employees, so the Vitter Amendment does in fact exempt Congress from Obamacare, not the other way around).
In short, the House wanted to gut Obamacare AND screw their staffers. So, yes, “dishonoring WWII vets” is nobler than denying millions of Americans health care.
Chris, nice Democrat talking points. You know the Memorial isn’t funded by the Federal government, right? You know it’s open to the public 24/7? And yet here you are to tell us that when the government is supposedly shut down due to lack of money, it’s necessary to use heavy machinery to bring in steel barrycades to block off a wide-open park?
I asked Baghdad Jim this, and I’ll ask the same of you? Is there any low to which you would not stoop, if Obama and the Democrats proposed it? Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi that there’s not a penny to be found in cuts in the Federal “budget”, which borrows a trillion dollars a year?
Another option is to send the park rangers home and just leave the veterans park to its own devices. I’m pretty sure veterans aren’t going to throw feces at the monuments. That would be the Occupy communists.
Or, since “essential” is about protecting property, then just define the park rangers at the veterans park as “essential” to protect that property. It would be no more breaking the law than all of the unilateral Obama waivers to ObamaControl.
I hope you get your answers, Paul!
“Yet it’s not appalling to vote against providing health insurance for millions of Americans?”
Gee I haven’t heard such screed since the old Soviet Union.
Nice propaganda – are you trying to compete with Baghdad Jim?
No one – NO ONE – is voting against providing health insurance for millions of Americans.
The debate is *HOW* to do that. Conservatives plans to deal with that have been offered dozens of times and were ignored by the Statist Thugs. Since said Statist Thugs had super majorities in Congress in the first 2 years of Obama’s reign (I bet you forgot that), and they lied, cheated, bribed, coerced, bent and broke the rules to pass the thing.
The debate is *HOW* to do that
No, the debate is whether to do it. The GOP certainly is free to submit a bill that repeals Obamacare and substitutes a different plan that covers as many people. They’ve had that opportunity since 2010. They’ve yet to do so. The only bills they’ve offered have repealed Obamacare, and replaced it with nothing.
No, it is *how* to do it. Part of this *how* is that it is not mandated by the government. *How* do we do it, outside of the stupid system that is being put in place now?
Part of the problem is your premise. Your premise is a version of how do “we” do this, where “we” is some federal government plan. And so when the other side proposes things that aren’t a government plan, you get confused because it doesn’t jibe with your starting premise.
The Republicans aren’t replacing with “nothing”. True, it’s not being replaced with some other central-command economy plan. But, there are many things done in this country that are not done based on centralized planning by the federal government, and they get done anyways.
The Republicans aren’t replacing with “nothing”.
They’re replacing it with the way things were before the ACA passed. In that scenario there are 50 million or so people without insurance. We already know that, because we’ve tried it. So yes, the question between the Democratic option (ACA) and the Republican (ACA) is a question about whether to have 50 million people without insurance, or 20-30 million people without insurance.
It’s funny how in the past when there was no general government involvement with health care you could have doctors come straight to your home and pay them in almost any manner you could, cash or chickens or whatever. Will a doctor come to my house today? Not a chance. Funny how you could afford doctor care in those days without any government mandates.
Fast forward to today…
Just because you have health insurance doesn’t mean you have health care. What has been done is equivalent to mandate that everyone now have a credit card that not many merchants will accept. Well, isn’t that just great. I thought I could keep my doctor. Oh of course Obama forgot to mention that that wasn’t a promise that he could keep. It wasn’t his promise to make.
And people throw around these so many uninsured people. 20 million here, 50 million there. Well, what about the already insured 230 million (or whatever, the vast majority) people? Why do they have to have everything turned upside down for these other 20 million? Why are these 20 million so special that they get to demand a system that raises costs on the other 230 million? What about the 230 million’s insurance that are now having premiums double or the employer dump the insurance entirely because of what the ACA has wrought?
Was the system perfect before? No. But, the “help” the left wants to give to these 20 million only comes by hurting the 230 million other middle class people. Why does the left not care about these 230 million who already had insurance and were able to afford it, but now it is harder or impossible because the costs are higher?
“No, the debate is whether to do it. The GOP certainly is free to submit a bill that repeals Obamacare and substitutes a different plan that covers as many people. ”
You are either clueless or lying about the debate being whether to do it. You surely must have heard the GOP plans for tort reform, lifting regulations preventing insurance companies from operating across state boundaries and the myriad other GOP attempts to make insurance much cheaper? Guess your head is too deeply buried in the sand to hear those things. Or you are willfully ignorant.
Secondly, your choice of words betray you: only a Statist Thug would even consider that the Feds are responsible for coming up with *A PLAN*.
Clue for you: The Feds consist of 535 or so people who have NO idea what their talking about when it comes to just about anything. Oh sure there’s a doctor here and there in the bunch. To imagine that these people can craft a plan to control something as huge and complicated as the health care/health insurance system of the US is to believe in Statist fairy dust. 535 people think that they can do BETTER than billions and billions of decisions made every day by individuals in the trenches.
It cannot be done WELL or PROPERLY by the government. That you haven’t learned that by now betrays an astonishing inability to reason. Even when it’s demonstrated to you in real time.
You surely must have heard the GOP plans
I’ve heard of them, and maybe John Boehner has heard of them, but none of them has been offered as legislation for Congress to vote on, and none of them has been evaluated as covering as many people as the ACA. So the situation remains: keep the ACA and cover 20-30 million, or repeal the ACA and don’t cover 20-30 million. Those are the only options currently before Congress.
Meanwhile, NIH is turning kids with cancer away from clinical trials because Boehner won’t let the House vote on a clean CR.
No, it’s because Reid and Obama refuse to compromise. But keep telling that lie.
You lie, Rand, There is no “compromise” on offer. The only offer is to defund Obamacare in exchange for not shutting down the rest of government. That is not a compromise, at least not in English.
No, you lie. The Republicans have made multiple offers. The Democrats refuse to negotiate or make any sort of counteroffer, insisting instead on getting everything they want. Then deliberately punishing people (like the veterans) and blaming the Republicans. Disgusting.
The only offer is to defund Obamacare
That’s not true.
GOP has offered the fund Obamacare, but delay the individual mandate 1 year along with the business mandate (I haven’t read it, but I hope it actually includes the legal language to allow the business mandate 1 year delay, since Obama doesn’t have the authority to do so unilaterally).
The GOP has also offered an option to move all Congressional staffers to Obamacare (removing Obama’s waiver for them) and to remove the job destroying and cost raising tax on medical devices; all while funding Obamacare.
I would call both of those fixes to Obamacare, but to Democrats, the thought of making Congress live on Obamacare, like the rest of the country, is akin to terrorist attacks.
But hey Gerrib, do tell us how evil Palin is for making a fundraising map.
None of the GOP’s offers have anything to do with the cause of the shutdown, which is Congress’ failure to pass a continuing resolution. The Senate has sent the House a CR that would end the shutdown, at spending levels that the House has approved. All Boehner has to do is bring it up for a vote — it would certainly pass, and Obama has said he’d sign it.
That hasn’t happened, because the GOP insists on using the shutdown to get things that are unrelated to a continuing resolution.
“None of the GOP’s offers have anything to do with the cause of the shutdown, which is Congress’ failure to pass a continuing resolution.”
And sending a clean CR has nothing to do with why we have been running the government off CR’s since Obama was elected. It is a deliberate strategy of the Democrats.
But this current CR standoff has more to due with Obama’s bruised ego. After getting his butt handed to him by Putin and Assad then having Iran pull the football away just as he was about to kick it, Obama has to look tough for his base. But this is just another example of Obama’s failed foreign and domestic tactics.
He would be better off using the hard power approach currently employed against the Republicans in foreign matters and the soft power approach reserved for Russia, China, Syria, and Iran at home. What kind of message does it send when Obama will not only negotiate but make concessions to the Taliban, Russia, Iran, and Syria but he wont make the smallest effort to compromise with his fellow American citizens?
The House has sent CRs to the Senate and they’ve refused to compromise. The fault is equally the Senate’s. Obama is not yet a dictator and Reid doesn’t always get his way. By refusing to compromise, by calling Republicans names like terrorists, Reid is the problem here.
None of the GOP’s offers have anything to do with the cause of the shutdown, which is Congress’ failure to pass a continuing resolution.
Exactly Jim. The Senate could end this in minutes by passing any one of the offers the GOP gave them and this would be over. The cause of the shutdown is Harry Reid’s desire to not negotiate.
The Senate could end this in minutes by passing any one of the offers the GOP gave them and this would be over.
The Senate has voted on every CR the House has sent them. The House hasn’t voted on the CR that they’ve gotten from the Senate, because Boehner hasn’t let it.
Even CNN is proving that you’re lying.
The Republicans specifically offered to fund those kids but Obama and Reid refused. They’re the ones who’re preventing those kids from getting treated. Their attitude is “my way or the highway” but government doesn’t work that way. Obama and Reid refuse any and all compromises so they’re the ones responsible for the shutdown. But keep lying.
If the idiocracy can’t pay for their spawn, then good riddance. Nobody ordered them to have kids they couldn’t afford.
Enjoy the decline.
This. I’m sick and tired of subsidizing the underclass.
This argument sickens me. It’s like a drug addict giving away their EBT card and then complaining that nobody is giving them money for food.
To make it easy for you to understand: The democrats are the drug addicts and drugs are money. When they foolishly spend it (close to ten trillion and counting), the republicans come in to cut off their funds. Then the democrats complain that necessary programs are being cut. How cynical, how typical and how pathetic.
City governments do this as well. Whenever money that could go into the union pensions is cut, they first talk about police and fire cuts.
This is in response to Jim’s comment: Meanwhile, NIH is turning kids with cancer away from clinical trials because Boehner won’t let the House vote on a clean CR.
No, as stated above, the House specifically offered to fund those treatments but Reaid refuses to discuss it. It’s his way or the highway. Reid and Obama are the obstances to compromise. They refuse to accept anything except complete surrender and truth be told, I doubt if they would accept anything less than major concessions. Obama is not yet a dictator.
When they foolishly spend it (close to ten trillion and counting), the republicans come in to cut off their funds
News flash: this shutdown isn’t about spending. The Democrats have totally capitulated on spending, and have sent the House a continuing resolution with spending levels chosen by the House GOP.
Hilarious. A continuing resolution to leave in place outrageous spending increases put in place five years ago by the Democrats, because they’ve refused to pass a budget since then, is “totally capitulating on spending.”
Rand, you are totally wrong about this. The CR passed by the Senate has lower spending levels than Paul Ryan proposed in his 2011 budget. In 2009 Obama proposed $1,203B in FY 2014 discretionary spending. In 2010, the last time the Dems controlled the House, we had $1,185B in discretionary spending. In 2011 Ryan proposed $1,095B. The CR calls for $986B.
This fight is not about spending — both sides have agreed to the $986B figure.
So I clicked your link Jim, and I looked around. I clicked their links. You know what I couldn’t find? The actual Senate amendment. When you are on the Senate’s Appropriation site and click Bill Status, you get the Thomas Registry, where you can only see the House’s actions.
So I decided to go to CBO.gov and find the information myself, rather than trust the word of a progressive website. I found this on the CBO website (short title by me): Estimated Budgetary Effects of House CR relative to amendment passed by Senate CR. That document shows the House CR has a larger decrease in the deficit.
So I think your progressive website is, what’s the word; “GRANDSTANDING”.
That document shows the House CR has a larger decrease in the deficit.
No, because the House CR is identical to the Senate CR. What that link shows is that the stuff that the House added onto the CR — some special immigrant visas, the one-year delay in the ACA individual mandate, and changes to the Federal Employee Health Benefit program — reduce the deficit. The change is almost entirely due to the delay in the individual mandate; without the mandate you have fewer people getting Medicaid or taking advantage of insurance subsidies. Meanwhile, the government would still be collecting Obamacare taxes, so you get that revenue without the expected offsetting expenses.
Again, this has nothing to do with “spending increases put in place five years go” (in Rand’s words). The House and Senate are in agreement on CR spending. The disagreement is over Obamacare.
No, because the House CR is identical to the Senate CR. What that link shows is that the stuff that the House added onto the CR
These two statements contradict each other. Either the Senate amendment (there is no Senate CR) is identical to the House CR (which is also a contradictory statement), or the House CR has things the Senate amendment has removed (which seems to be the case). If the Senate has, as Jim grandstands “The Democrats have totally capitulated on spending”, then there would be no need for a Senate Amendment.
There is also no need for the Administration to continue this fight on veterans and military academies. Those fights have nothing to do with either government appropriations or Obamacare. They have everything to do with politicizing the Executive Branch to be a tool to promote DNC and Progressive priorities. It’s an abuse of governmental authority.
“Meanwhile, NIH is turning kids with cancer away from clinical trials because Boehner won’t let the House vote on a clean CR.”
Nice propaganda. However you remain clueless: when asked if he would pass a House bill specifi8cally for the NIH which would fund that very center, Reid’s reply was:
“Why would we want to do that? ”
Full exchange below.
In other word’s Jim your side is happy to kill children to prove a point. Since you seem to side with that choice I have to wonder why you hate kids?
DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that?
HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.
BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?
REID: Why would we want to do that?
And there you have it. If presented with a bill to fund that specific
Since you seem to side with that choice
I don’t — I think Reid should fund every part of the government that the House lets him fund. It’s tedious to do it in bits and pieces, when the Senate has already passed a CR to fund everything, but why not?
And you might want to go easy on the “wanting kids to die” rhetoric, at least until the GOP gets around to funding WIC, the FDA, FAA, CDC, etc.
It’s a bit late Jim, but perhaps you might want to ease off at the outright grandstanding statements that are easily disproven.
WIC program will be funded despite shutdown
BTW, last night’s shutdown stories on NBC News were what you’d expect if the DNC wrote the script, and when they talked about the obstacles faced by the veterans, they didn’t once mention that the veterans ignored the gates, they said “and then the gates were opened,” in the passive voice, letting viewers assume that Obama made a command decision to let the veterans in, as opposed to them just ignoring the dictates of Mr. Useless.
Was watching CNN this morning and Wolf Blitzer is out there telling people that we are all going to get food poisoning and we are going to get attacked by terrorists. Republicans knew this would happen so that explains why they didn’t have a plan to counter these attacks.
letting viewers assume that Obama made a command decision to let the veterans in, as opposed to them just ignoring the dictates of Mr. Useless.
Also ignored the threats by the NPS police to arrest some of the veterans.
BTW, WWI memorial has exactly one barrycade and a sign. A person with a walker could manuever around it and walk up to the memorial. This is no different than when Obama closed the White House because of the “sequester” than took his $100 million trip to Africa.
Unbelievable. The government is actually spending money to rent #barrycades.
According to Jim, it’s $300 million a day to shutdown the government. Those Barrycades are damn expensive.
Holy cow, this President is drunk with power. This is just absurd:
The Claude Moore Colonial Farm announced on Wednesday that NPS has ordered it to suspend operations until Congress agrees to a deal to fund the federal government.
…
The park withstood prior government shutdowns, noting in a news release that the farm will be closed to the public for the first time in 40 years.
…
One reason that citizens worked so hard to save the Farm in 1980-81was partly because the NPS tried so hard to get rid of it. But what really saved the Farm were the individuals and families with children and who had visited, participated in programs and volunteered.
Move evidence to me that socialism will not tolerate charity from free men.
I have never worked with a more arrogant, arbitrary and vindictive group representing the NPS.
And this is why Obamacare is bad. If you don’t think Obama or some future President won’t do this with healthcare, then you are a fool.
And this is just the parks service. Think about the IRS, EPA, and DOJ over the last five years. Doesn’t sound too crazy now that they are going after Obama’s enemies list.
Yet another example: the Navy-Air Force football game scheduled for this weekend is being canceled. However, the academy athletic programs aren’t funded by the government. Letting them play is considered “bad optics”.
The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a private organization not funded by the government. Gladchuk said the Air Force-Navy game could be held without any “appropriated funding.” Air Force recently created a similar athletic association that operates using private funds, donations and revenue from intercollegiate contests.
“We could run our entire athletics program and conduct events as we always do without any government funds,” Gladchuk said. “In talking to the Air Force athletic director, their football team could execute the trip without government funding.”
Asked why the Department of Defense was suspending intercollegiate athletic contests if government funds are not required, Gladchuk said he was told it was about “optics.”
“It’s a perception thing. Apparently it doesn’t resonate with all the other government agencies that have been shut down,” Gladchuk said.
Air Force released a statement on Tuesday stating “at this time, travel for all intercollegiate athletics is canceled — this includes the Air Force-Navy game.” Athletic Director Hans Mueh was not available for further comment as he was among many Air Force Academy employees sent home on indefinite furloughs.
They shut down the Columbia Plateau Trail which is an old rail bed that is for the most part maintained with state money through the sale of the Discover Pass. And I use the word maintained loosely. While they do empty some trash cans at trail heads, there hasn’t been any maintenance done on the trail in a decade or more.
No one would notice the rangers staying home for well, ever. Guess that’s why Obama told them to lock the gates.
Gratuitous is a good word to describe the Obama administration’s actions.
The Columbia Plateau Trail is listed as a state park on the Washington state parks web site. Shutting it down because of a federal funding issue is outrageous.
Nice point, Leland. Just imagine a future government shutdown, after Obamacare has done its magic and we’re left with a single-payer system, and the healthcare system is deliberately targeted to “enhance the pain” and coerce one party or the other into compliance.
The fact that healthcare is of (literally) vital importance – the premise Democrats have been using for years as justification for nationalizing it in part, whole, or increments – is the reason it should *never* be put under control of the government.
Stepping back a bit….
Now that the shutdown has started there are a variety of stories coming out along these lines:
1) A bad thing is happening because of the government shutdown
2) Something that doesn’t need to be shut down is needlessly/perversely being shut down
3) The government is perversely spending more money shutting down X than it’d cost to keep X open
I think it’s worth remembering that all these things are intentional. A shutdown isn’t supposed to be sustainable or efficient, and it isn’t designed to save money. A shutdown is supposed to cause pain.
The purpose of a shutdown is to force the political system to come to an agreement. The way it does that is by creating pain and suffering. If shutdowns were painless, you could imagine us going years without passing appropriation bills, and that would be bad.
But how painful should a shutdown be? A more painful one might spur the political actors to come to an agreement more quickly, but there are levels of pain (e.g. closing all airports) that are too extreme. So in the 80s the Attorney General issued rulings that have been used since then to draw a line between essential (i.e. too painful to withdraw) government services, and non-essential ones. The goal is some unhappy medium, a level of pain that spurs politicians to act, without destroying the economy or killing lots of people. Parks and memorials obviously aren’t essential in the way that air traffic control and meat inspections are, but people hate it when they’re closed, so closing them is the perfect sort of shutdown pain.
A shutdown happens because both sides think the alternative — giving up what they’d have to give up to reach agreement — is worse. Each side thinks that the pain of the shutdown will (over time) change the other sides’ calculation, and make them more inclined to deal. You can tell which side is feeling the pressure by watching which one gives ground on its demands, and/or proposes changes to the shutdown to make it less painful.
Jim’s now rationalizing the politicizing of government to abuse the citizenry.
Here’s a thought Jim; if you want others to feel pain in order to get them to negotiate, try this: MAKE CONGRESS ABIDE BY ALL THE LAWS THEY PASS INCLUDING OBAMACARE.
Jim’s now rationalizing
I’m not rationalizing, I’m describing. No judgement is implied.
MAKE CONGRESS ABIDE BY ALL THE LAWS THEY PASS INCLUDING OBAMACARE.
How, exactly? A government shutdown is a mechanism, a way to make Congress pass spending bills in a timely fashion. It doesn’t belong to either party, it’s part of our system. What mechanism do you propose?
And what does this have to do with Obamacare?
How, exactly?
By passing the CR that contains the language. That’s all Harry Reid has to do to end this right now. Obama should have never waivered the Congressional staff from Obamacare. He can fix that today, end the shutdown, and have all the pain on Congress he needs to get them to work on fixes to Obamacare with no delay and the government back up and running.
That’s all Harry Reid has to do to end this right now.
That isn’t actually true — the House hasn’t sent over a CR with just the Vitter Amendment (the no employer health benefits for Congress provision) attached. When it had the Vitter Amendment attached it also had a delay in the individual mandate, which would mean 11 million fewer people getting coverage. And again, neither of these have anything to do with the cause of the shutdown, which is the expiration of the last continuing resolution.
Second, why is it so important that Congress and their staff lose employer-provided health benefits, and what does that have to do with Obamacare?
…why is it so important that Congress and their staff lose employer-provided health benefits, and what does that have to do with Obamacare?
Because a) (and yes, we know that this will seem a very bizarre concept to you) it’s the law and b) Congress and their staff shouldn’t be passing laws that they don’t have to live under themselves. They’re public servants, not royalty.
it’s the law
No, it obviously isn’t already the law, otherwise why would they be sending it to the Senate?
Congress and their staff shouldn’t be passing laws that they don’t have to live under themselves
A total non sequitur. Nothing in the law bars employer health benefits. IBM employees living under this law don’t have to give up their health benefits, why must Congressional employees?
No, it obviously isn’t already the law, otherwise why would they be sending it to the Senate?
Wow. Just wow.
They are sending it to the Senate to remind them that they are, and have been for years, in violation of the law. I hate to give you civics 101, but the House has no authority to enforce the law. That is the job of the (completely corrupt) Executive Branch, which you support, and which doesn’t give a damn about the law, when it finds it inconvenient.
Second, why is it so important that Congress and their staff lose employer-provided health benefits, and what does that have to do with Obamacare?
Once again, because it’s the EFFING LAW. I know you haven’t, because no one has, but go read the the EFFING OBAMACARE LAW, that the president himself doesn’t give a damn about, except when the House tries to Constitutionally defund it.
They are sending it to the Senate to remind them that they are, and have been for years, in violation of the law.
So now we re-pass laws that already exist as a reminder? Really? And how could they have been in violation of the law for years when the exchanges opened for enrollment two days ago?
The Vitter Amendment is not the law, it’s a change to the law, and it won’t have any legal force until it’s passed.
the House has no authority to enforce the law
If the law’s being broken, anyone who’s harmed can take the administration to court.
Once again, because it’s the EFFING LAW.
Repetition and capitalization don’t make it so.
go read the the EFFING OBAMACARE LAW
It says that Congress (and aides) have to buy insurance on the ACA exchanges. It doesn’t say that they have to pay for that insurance out of pocket. That language is in the Vitter Amendment, it isn’t in current law.
I like the “eat your own dogfood” sentiment behind the Vitter Amendment, but there’s no reason to cut the total compensation of Congressional aides. Instead we should stop paying for health benefits and give the employees that money as salary. They could use it to buy insurance for themselves on the exchanges, or spend it on something else if they don’t need coverage. And I wouldn’t limit it to Congressional aides, I’d do it for all federal employees. If we want the exchanges to work well for the population as a whole, having most federal employees as exchange customers would be a good thing, and states could try to do the same with their employees (I’m guessing there’d be a lot of pushback from public employee unions, since they tend to have high-end health plans).
I like the “eat your own dogfood” sentiment behind the Vitter Amendment, but there’s no reason to cut the total compensation of Congressional aides. Instead we should stop paying for health benefits and give the employees that money as salary.
Again, you write contradictory statements. Also, giving that money as salary increases the benefits of Congressional aide by raising their base salary, which raises the amount due to them at retirement, which increases the cost of pension entitlements, which is the problem facing Detroit today, and will be the problem facing the US if not in 2 weeks, then in 5 years.
Again, you write contradictory statements
There’s no contradiction. Note the adjective “total”.
As for pensions, you could adjust the pension calculation so that pension liabilities would be unchanged; it isn’t rocket science.
I agree that is intentional and that it is intended to cause pain and suffering. But Obama is the one giving the orders on what is shut and how its shut. This is an important distinction. Obama isn’t the impartial implementer of laws and regulations. He is intentionally making his choices outside of laws and regulations based on who he wants to suffer and other political considerations.
He apparently didn’t learn anything from the IRS scandal.
But Obama is the one giving the orders on what is shut and how its shut.
Yes, that’s the responsibility of the executive.
He is intentionally making his choices outside of laws and regulations
No, each department is following laws and regulations that were developed decades ago. This is the case whenever there’s a shutdown. Each department has issued a plan explaining how they are implementing the shutdown — they are public documents.
Bullshit. Each agency is not following laws and regulations about how to act and what to shutdown. The are following orders issued by Obama outside of any law or regulation. I guess you will next say, “If Obama orders it, it is the law.”
The intent and capacity to harm other people out of spite is fitting with Obama and the Democrats complex of persecution. It fits right in with the daily abuses by government agencies against Obama’s enemies list. I don’t understand why Democrats support these actions which are contrary to their public expressions of their political ideals. And Jim, you couldn’t even bring yourself to condemn a prominent Democrat party publication for calling for the execution of all the Republican congresspeople and a bloody coup.
for calling for the execution of all the Republican congresspeople and a bloody coup
You have a vivid imagination.
It was an article telling Obama to act like Yeltsin and execute the opposition complete with a picture of a tank and burning building. And you can’t even speak out against your own party’s activists calling for violence.
The Democrat party has some serious problems with their members wanting and actually using violence for political gain. Just look at OWS, ELF, Greenpeace, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists and other Democrat militant prostest groups. Or think back to the FRC shooting.
The dehumanizing of Obama’s opposition with racist stereotypes and other archetypes makes Democrats feel justified in the use of violence and abuse of government agencies. The violence needs to end and the Democrat party needs a reformation from within to make it happen. You could be part of the solution but first you have to stop justifying these violent acts and calls for violence and stop ignoring them.
I’ve seen CNN talking about the military academies not playing games. Apparently, this is more of Obama and Democrats wanting to cause pain to the military:
The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a private organization not funded by the government. Gladchuk said the Air Force-Navy game could be held without any “appropriated funding.” Air Force recently created a similar athletic association that operates using private funds, donations and revenue from intercollegiate contests.
“We could run our entire athletics program and conduct events as we always do without any government funds,” Gladchuk said. “In talking to the Air Force athletic director, their football team could execute the trip without government funding.”
So a privately funded program isn’t allowed to operate because Obama wants to shut it down. Not playing the game will cost the two athletic programs $4 million, because Jim thinks the point of a shutdown is to cause pain. Well Obama and the Democrats shutdown the government and then some. Here is what Harry Reid thinks of our military.
These people now want to run your healthcare. It will just be a new way for them to cause pain in the future.
So a privately funded program isn’t allowed to operate because Obama wants to shut it down.
No, a government-related program isn’t allowed to operate because the government is shut down, and the program isn’t deemed essential. That’s the whole point of a shutdown — to create pain, suffering and inconvenience, so Congress is motivated by public outrage to do its job and pass a spending bill. If you take away the pain, you take away the motivation.
Well, it remains that the Obama administration is the one inflicting this little bit of pain and suffering without having a valid financial reason for it. And if they can shut down activities that have no financial bearing on the current situation, maybe that’s an indication of federal authority that should be reviewed and perhaps removed at a later time.
For what it’s worth, I am suffering from the shutdown and willing to do so. Since I work in Yellowstone, a national park that for the time being is shut down (for valid reasons, it is a considerable cost to run), that means my company has no guests to service. I’ll see what comes of that.
My view remains that Obamacare was worse than doing nothing – for the usual reasons that have been discussed here over the past few years. I don’t really see the government shutdown being effective, but I’m willing to give it a chance. I’m tired of idiots messing up things and then blaming others for the shortcomings of their schemes.
As an aside, I’m reading a lot of proponents’ arguments over the past few days for Obamacare and one very common thread is the talk of how much Obamacare benefits themselves and their families. This large subgroup give no thought to how it’s going to be paid. They’re just lunging for that carrot that’s dangled in front of them. Sure, I can understand how someone who has an expensive and dangerous medical condition could be swayed by Obamacare, but what’s going to happen in a few years when this all needs to be paid for? Where will their medical care be then? As Jim has repeatedly noted, the CBO will provide all the glowing forecasts that Congress could want. But it’s not going to pay for this stuff.
Well, it remains that the Obama administration is the one inflicting this little bit of pain and suffering without having a valid financial reason for it.
Yes, that’s how shutdowns are supposed to work. This system was designed decades ago — it isn’t something that the Obama administration came up with.
if they can shut down activities that have no financial bearing on the current situation, maybe that’s an indication of federal authority that should be reviewed and perhaps removed at a later time.
Sure, Congress is free to change the Antideficiency Act. But take a step back and think about what you are suggesting. Right now we have lots of federal agencies spending money that was never appropriated by Congress. Air traffic controllers are showing up for work, meat is getting inspected, troops are still on duty, etc. It would be a catastrophe if all that stopped, so we let it go on. But if you care about the rule of law, having a government go on spending money that was never legally appropriated is not a good situation. It’s a crisis, something that we want ended as soon as possible. Cancelled football games and barricaded monuments are a small price to pay when the alternative is a government that goes on indefinitely spending money without any legal basis.
the CBO will provide all the glowing forecasts that Congress could want. But it’s not going to pay for this stuff.
Actually, the CBO’s forecasts for exchange premiums (which were criticized as being too optimistic) were higher than the actual premiums in 94% of cases. The people who are actually going to pay for the medical care — the insurance companies — came in with lower prices than forecast.
Yes, that’s how shutdowns are supposed to work.
No. Shutdowns happen because the government is not funded. There’s a financial reason there.
Actually, the CBO’s forecasts for exchange premiums (which were criticized as being too optimistic) were higher than the actual premiums in 94% of cases.
For this year, assuming generously the numbers haven’t been cooked and exaggerated. I don’t believe that it will last.
Shutdowns happen because the government is not funded. There’s a financial reason there.
If it were strictly financial the NIH would have sent all its patients home and turned off the hospital lights. It hasn’t done that — it continues to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated. The point of a shutdown isn’t to spend the least amount of money, it’s to create the most pressure for a resolution to an unacceptable crisis.
No, a government-related program isn’t allowed to operate because the government is shut down
If this were true, then healthcare.gov would currently be shutdown. But it’s not true, it is grandstanding bs that is common for you, Jim. The President does not have authority to shutdown things just because they are government related. He can only shutdown the government part of them and even then, by the law that you previously cited. That law does not give Obama the authority that he is trying to exercise now. Fortunately, people are starting to realize the overreach and unlawful requests by the President, and pushing back. The Service Academy’s Football games will go on this weekend.
Healthcare.gov isn’t shutdown because it, like Social Security and Medicare benefits, have funding that was legally appropriated by Congress. The things that are shutdown are the non-essential functions of departments that are currently operating without any appropriations.
Healthcare.gov isn’t shutdown because it, like Social Security and Medicare benefits, have funding that was legally appropriated by Congress.
So why is the President shutting down the WWII memorial? It’s appropriation doesn’t even come from Congress. It comes from private donations.
So why is the President shutting down Claude Moore Colonial Farm? It’s appropriation doesn’t even come from Congress. It hasn’t used federal funds since 1980.
So why is the President trying to block the Service Academies from playing football? There games are not funded by Congressional appropriations. They are funded by private donations to the Academies and by playing the games, the Academies receive a Net income!
Further, NIH could be funded today if the Senate was willing to vote on the House’s appropriation for it.
It’s appropriation doesn’t even come from Congress.
It’s maintained by the National Park Service, and Congress hasn’t appropriated money for the NPS as of October 1.
why is the President shutting down Claude Moore Colonial Farm?
Because it’s an NPS park, and NPS is shut down.
why is the President trying to block the Service Academies from playing football
Because the service academies are operating without appropriations.
Because the service academies are operating without appropriations.
If true, and I’m finding your claims increasingly in error; then shouldn’t the service academies be shutdown? Why keep open the government funded academy, yet shutdown the privately funded sports program?
shouldn’t the service academies be shutdown?
The academies are shutting down.
Google is your friend.
The academies are shutting down.
Parts of the academy are shut down. The parts that are funded, like the sports program, are still operating. Read the whole thing is your friend.
Because it’s an NPS park, and NPS is shut down.
It is not. It’s a National Park, but it’s not operated by the NPS and hasn’t been since 1980. There is no government service provided there other than the lease of the land, which is paid by the private organization operating the facility.
For a person arguing that not raising the debt limit is a failure to pay back obligations; Jim certainly seems just fine with ignoring long term lease agreements, or does Jim know that Obama would destroy the full faith and credit of the United States if given the opportunity.
The academies are furloughing civilian employees, canceling classes, and the Merchant Marine Academy is going to send its students home if the shutdown lasts into next week. And all the attention is on a canceled football game?
The Claude Moore Colonial Farm is on NPS land, and the NPS is shut down. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees are on furlough, hundreds of National Parks are closed, and closing this one park is your source of outrage?
Now we have the Obama Adminisration doubling down on their idiocy:
First they paid for barrycades – around a completely open air monument mind you – to prevent the WWII vets from seeing their monument….
It’s now been proven on video that SEIU protestors were paid to demonstrate AT the WWII monument to underscore their plight due to the shutdown?
And what is that plight? That they will get paid vacation days.
I think the Obama messaging system is getting a little frayed around the edges.
It’s now been proven on video that SEIU protestors were paid to demonstrate AT the WWII monument
But according to Jim, they were there to cause pain to the WWII vets. In civilized parts of society, we call that thuggery.
Yeah well according to Jim, everything this administration does is pure gold.
That’s the whole point of a shutdown — to create pain, suffering and inconvenience
No, the whole point of a shutdown is to demonstrate all of the things government does that aren’t essential. Currently 90% of employees of the EPA and NLRB are enjoying some un-anticipated family time. Someone is going to have to explain to me exactly what the down-side is there. The up-side is sure clear: a few of them might take a little time and decide they’d be happier working in a capacity that creates value instead of destroying it.