John Kass says that the president should mount a hunting expedition:
Pettinato said the 91 veterans enjoyed the WWII Memorial but were told they wouldn’t be able to visit the Korean or Vietnam war memorials.
The whole thing is idiotic, or moronic. If you’ve ever been to Washington and toured the WWII Memorial, or the Vietnam Memorial, you know why.
They’re made of stone. They’re out in the open. These are our secular holy places, commemorating our fathers and grandfathers who died so Americans can scream like cats about who spends what.
You can see the memorials during the day or at night. I’ve been to both when there were no guards present, just soldiers or the families of soldiers.
There was no reason to set up even minor blockades this week, except to play the political blame game. And it hurt the president.
Good. Of course, with this administration, for moron hunters, it’s a target-rich environment. Starting from the top.
Morons also barrycaded Mount Vernon, a private non-profit facility for over 150 years.
Yes, it’s ridiculous to stop people from seeing open-air memorials. But it’s more than ridiculous to have dozens of government departments spending the taxpayer’s money when no money has been legally appropriated.
The problem with closing memorials isn’t that it’s too painful, it’s that it (apparently) isn’t painful enough to spur lawmakers to address the real problem.
But it’s more than ridiculous to have dozens of government departments spending the taxpayer’s money when no money has been legally appropriated.
Agreed, so what appropriations is NPS using to purchase these barrycades?
The problem with closing memorials isn’t that it’s too painful, it’s that it (apparently) isn’t painful enough to spur lawmakers to address the real problem.
I would expect nothing less from a fascist. But the real problem is that there is no authorized reason to shutdown privately funded memorials. Nor is their an authorized reason to shutdown privately funded campsites. This is Obama shuting down things for the sake of making people suffer. Congress has nothing at all to do with it. The House has even passed bills to try and stop the President from doing these things.
The WWII memorial was built with private funds but it is operated by the National Parks service.
It’s an open facility that only requires minimal maintenance. Anyone can normally walk up to the memorial any time, day or night. The NPS is spending money erecting “barrycades” and perhaps employing park police where none are normally needed. It’s an incredibly stupid move but I’d expect nothing less from someone as stupid as Obama.
Then there are the private places like Mount Vernon that they’re trying to close. What justification is there for that stupid move?
Mount Vernon isn’t closed. Reportedly a parking lot at Mount Vernon that is owned by the National Park Service is closed, like other non-essential NPS facilities.
Closed or just Barrycaded?
so what appropriations is NPS using to purchase these barrycades
None — they are operating outside the law. Just like the doctors treating cancer patients at the NIH, and the air traffic controllers who showed up to work today. They are all spending money that was not legally appropriated. A big fraction of our government is spending money without any legal justification, and will continue to do so until the shutdown is resolved.
So the parks service can spend unappropriated money to keep the monuments open, or spend unappropriated money to close them. Which do you think will contribute to a speedier resolution of the crisis?
This is Obama shuting down things for the sake of making people suffer.
Consider the alternative: Obama could ignore the Antideficiency Act and let the government go on with business as usual. We could keep all the parks and monuments open, keep letting kids into cancer trials, keep processing disability claims. No one would have to be inconvenienced at all. Is that what you propose?
Conservatives talk a lot about “out of control government spending.” At this moment, much of our government spending really is, literally, out of control — it hasn’t been authorized by Congress. But that fact doesn’t seem to concern you as much as the fate of open-air memorials and service academy football games.
“None — they are operating outside the law.”
And yet yesterday you said they were forced to do this by laws and regulations.
“So the parks service can spend unappropriated money to keep the monuments open, or spend unappropriated money to close them. ”
You got this all wrong. Let me help you with your choice matrix.
1. They can spend money to keep things open, meaning they collect the trash or whatever they do on a weekly or monthly basis, depending on what park we are talking about.
2. They can spend no money and let the trash pile up or the pack it in pack it out type of people who use parks wont leave any trash. The parks are officially closed with no services being offered.
3. They can spend hundreds of millions in manpower and resources erecting Barrycades to block off areas that are never blocked and have no mechanisms to block access. All for political theatre, outside of any laws and regulations, and with the intent of causing pain and suffering.
Prior shutdowns went with 2 but Obama went with 3.
There is a big distinction between “closing” something and erecting barriers. That Obama feels the need to act this way reveals a lot about his inner psyche and explains many previous actions of his administration.
Prior shutdowns went with 2 but Obama went with 3.
There’s a case to be made for either approach, but in the context of a government shutdown affecting hundreds of thousands of employees at tens of thousands of locations across the country, the distinction between the two approaches to handling a handful of open-air parks and monuments is a pretty trivial one.
I agree that it is a trivial act of political theatrics and it should be called out as such. The motives behind the actions are the same that led to the IRS going after Obama’s enemies list and the EPA going after industries that Obama wants to cease to exist.
You first claimed Obama had to act this way because of laws and regulations. Then you switched and said he was going out of his way to do this and was not required to.
This is all a farce. The GOP requests were so small and also in Obama’s best interests to accept. But Obama needs a crisis to distract from everything crumbling around him on the foreign stage and failure after failure domestically.
“The problem with closing memorials isn’t that it’s too painful, it’s that it (apparently) isn’t painful enough to spur lawmakers to address the real problem.”
Do you ever think about what you write? Seriously think about it?
You want one branch (Obama thugs) to cause pain if certain people (Congress) don’t do what they (Obama-thugists) want them to do.
Do you think they wouldn’t do the same to you? Congress-critters can fight back to some degree. Do you realize that Government has no recourse but to cause pain? Why do you want to give them the power over every aspect of your life given that, if you don’t do what they decree, they will cause you pain? You have so much LESS power to fight back as compared to a congress critter. Why do you give them the ability to abuse you?
You love force; love causing pain to get your way….you can’t persuade so you want to flog people into obedience.
I detest everything about that point of view.
You want one branch (Obama thugs) to cause pain if certain people (Congress) don’t do what they (Obama-thugists) want them to do.
I don’t want the government to go on spending money without legal authorization, no matter which party is in the White House or Congress. So I want the executive, whoever it is, to shut down as much of the the affected departments as humanely possible until they are legally funded. I am surprised that you think it’s acceptable to have an executive branch spending money that has never been authorized by the legislature.
I am surprised that you think it’s acceptable to have an executive branch spending money that has never been authorized by the legislature.
Gregg never said it was acceptable. In fact, I think he would agree with the view that the Executive Branch need not spend any money to block veterans access to the WWII memorial. I suspect furhter, he detests the DNC paying protestors to assemble around the WWII memorial and harass the vets.
However, Jim, you did say the purpose for all this was to cause pain. Those were your words that Gregg is detesting. You may think yourself exceptionally brilliant at turning the phrase, but actually your attempt is ridiculous. One needs only scroll up and see: The problem with closing memorials isn’t that it’s too painful, it’s that it (apparently) isn’t painful enough to spur lawmakers to address the real problem. You wrote that Jim. Everyone can see it. If you don’t like it, then you are welcome to apologize and retract the statement.
“So I want the executive, whoever it is, to shut down as much of the the affected departments as humanely possible until they are legally funded.”
So you want Obama to operate outside the law in order to see that the law is followed? Umm what?
If you hold the law in such high esteem then championing Obama’s actions outside the law are just a wee bit hypocritical. But not inconsistent because you also think it is ok for Obama to make up new portions of the ACA or ignore provisions written in the actual bill.
In the case of a funding gap the executive is forced to operate outside the law — there’s no reasonable alternative (unless you think it’d be reasonable to immediately stop spending money on air traffic control, the military, food inspections, the Secret Service, the FBI, etc.).
But you don’t want to be operating outside the law a minute longer than necessary, so the shutdown has to mean something. Otherwise there’d be no pressure to end it. It’s crazy that you are so worked up about barricaded monuments when we have a government operating without legal funding.
There’s actually two good reasons to close open-air memorials, at least in DC.
1) In DC, any problem, from kids being kids to something more serious, is the responsibility of the Park Police. They are on furlough, so (at best) you’re handing an unfunded mandate to the city of DC to patrol these areas.
2) For any space, open-air or not, the owner assumes liabilities for slips and falls. If the facility is closed and somebody has to bypass a fence to get around it, then the bypasser has assumed liability. If it’s wide open, then you the owner are liable.
1) In DC, any problem, from kids being kids to something more serious, is the responsibility of the Park Police. They are on furlough, so (at best) you’re handing an unfunded mandate to the city of DC to patrol these areas.
The Park Police are not furloughed. They were recalled by the Obama Administration to erect and man the barrycades during the time the honor flights arrived. I’m sure the 90 year old vets appreciate their youthful vigor, but they are not kids being kids. There is no mandate to the city of DC to do anything. The maintenance of the memorial is covered by private funding and always has benn.
2) For any space, open-air or not, the owner assumes liabilities for slips and falls. If the facility is closed and somebody has to bypass a fence to get around it, then the bypasser has assumed liability. If it’s wide open, then you the owner are liable.
Federal Indemnity has not magically disappeared. Further, in places like Mount Vernon, Claude Moore Colonial Farm, and hundreds of privately funded camp sites across the nation; the operator of the facility must deal with injuries to visitors. Yet Obama has demanded those sites be barrycaded as well. Those facilities have their own security staff.
No, the Park Police are not manning any barricades.
The private concessions are on Federal land, which needs to be open to be accessed.
No, the Park Police are not manning any barricades.
They were recalled from furlough. Apparently Obama found some appropriations.
The private concessions are on Federal land, which needs to be open to be accessed.
The federal land is and has always been open. It has to be actively blocked to become inaccessible. As Gregg asks of Jim, do you ever think about what you write?
Democrat party activists are manning the barrycades. Some of them happen to be government workers being paid to politic for Obama and some are your typical paid protesters.
Don’t we have a law on the books about using government resources for political campaigns?
“There’s actually two good reasons to close open-air memorials, at least in DC.”
There are NO good reasons for closing the open air memorials. During every other shutdown, they were open. Including 1995.
But NOW, they are using Federal dollars to keep the owners (the US people) out.
Imagine that you were in charge of interpreting the Antideficiency Act. You have a bunch of government departments, employing hundreds of thousands of people, performing a variety of tasks, some of them life-critical. Congress fails to authorize any spending by those departments. What should happen, and why?
First, you might try proving that Congress does not have appropriations for the Antideficiency Act. Second, if you didn’t have appropriations; I wouldn’t recommend spending funds on things that are novel, like closing down privately run and funded establishments because they have leased federal property. Why wouldn’t I do something novel like that; because past history of 17 previous shutdowns shows such steps are entirely unnecessary. Also, common sense suggests what the Obama Administration is doing to be counter-productive and wasteful.
Now, imagine you are in charge of the IRS. You have a law passed by Congress that says business must share in their employers healthcare expenses after Dec 31st, 2013 or pay a
finetax. The President claims he has the right to change that date without an amendment passed by Congress to the original law that defined that date. What should happend and why?First, you might try proving that Congress does not have appropriations for the Antideficiency Act.
It’s universally accepted that Congress hasn’t appropriated any funds for a long list of departments, as of October 1.
because past history of 17 previous shutdowns shows such steps are entirely unnecessary
The last shutdown lasted weeks, and cost $2B. Isn’t that an argument for doing more than was done the last time?
common sense suggests what the Obama Administration is doing to be counter-productive and wasteful
Really? Hasn’t the publicity around the memorials and football games created public pressure to end the shutdown? Isn’t that exactly what it’s supposed to do?
This is just batshit crazy: The last shutdown lasted weeks, and cost $2B. Isn’t that an argument for doing more than was done the last time?
Jim, have you lost your effing mind?
We do not need to spend more money barrycading private offices and open air memorials because the President believes that inflicting pain on the American people is a winning strategy to get what he wants.
“The last shutdown lasted weeks, and cost $2B. Isn’t that an argument for doing more than was done the last time?”
No. It is a pretty poor justification for operating outside the law and using government agencies as part of a political campaign.
What would you do to end this shutdown more quickly than the one in 1995?
I would have Obama delay the individual mandate for a year but actually have congress approve the change. This would remove any taxes for not having insurance because a lot of people don’t have a clue. It would allow the IT systems to get ironed out. It would build good will with Obama’s base and with his political opponents. It would put the average person on par with all of the Democrat special interest groups that got waivers.
Stupid of Obama not to do it because it is in his own best interest and that of the country. But after Obama got worked over by Syria, Russia, and Iran his ego is standing in the way of good policy. For Obama, this isn’t about making changes to Obamacare or funding the government. It’s about spite, ego, and distraction from Obama’s failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and here at home.
I would have Obama delay the individual mandate
The government isn’t shut down because of the individual mandate, it’s shut down because no CR has been passed.
What would you do to get both sides to think that signing a CR is preferable to a continue shutdown?
It would put the average person on par with all of the Democrat special interest groups that got waivers.
What Democrat special interest group has gotten a waiver from the individual mandate?
The last shutdown lasted weeks, and cost $2B. Isn’t that an argument for doing more than was done the last time?
Last time, the President didn’t commit seppuku with a wooden spork either. Sure, let’s do more!
Hasn’t the publicity around the memorials and football games created public pressure to end the shutdown?
Not that I’ve noticed. I think it’s mainly increased anger at the administration. As it should.
And you don’t think that anger creates pressure for a solution?
It may, but it won’t necessarily create pressure for a solution that the White House will like.
it won’t necessarily create pressure for a solution that the White House will like.
So be it. The shutdown isn’t about favoring one side or another, it’s about raising the cost for both sides, until they come to an agreement.
So, Obama in his tactical genius closed the parks in order to put pressure on himself to cave during the non-negotiations?
“The shutdown isn’t about favoring one side or another, it’s about raising the cost for both sides, until they come to an agreement.”
You actually think this was the intended outcome of Obama’s tactics? Obama didn’t make a line of barrycades, society did?
So be it. The shutdown isn’t about favoring one side or another, it’s about raising the cost for both sides, until they come to an agreement.
The “costs” will grow more rapidly for your side Jimmy. The more time that passes, the more people will come to understand how much government waste there is. As happened during the sequester, the doom-sayers will be seen as just so many additional mouth-breathers.
The “costs” will grow more rapidly for your side Jimmy.
Right now the GOP is trying to pass piecemeal appropriation bills to fund individual departments (Veterans Affairs, National Parks, NIH, etc.). In other words, the GOP is trying to lower the costs of the shutdown, while the Dems are standing pat. I don’t know how this will turn out, but their respective current behavior suggests that the GOP is feeling more pressure.
the GOP is trying to lower the costs of the shutdown, while the Dems are standing pat. I don’t know how this will turn out, but their respective current behavior suggests that the GOP is feeling more pressure.
With that description, it looks like the GOP is interested in being good stewards of the federal government, and the Dems want to use federal government as a tool to abuse the subjects. No wonder Democrats hear gunshots outside and fear the boogie man is coming, they are trying to incite the boogie man.
To combat a little BS from Jim:
1) Appropriations for most federal activities are 2 year. I can guarantee that the FY2012 appropriations aren’t 100% expended. Every federal office I ever supported budgeted (held) at least 2-3mo of extra funds for the inevitable CR months after the close of every FY. Furlough isn’t necessary.
2) Even if all prior appropriations were obligated and expended, the feds currently working wouldn’t be “spending un-appropriated money”, they’d be working as VOLUNTEERS with the expectation of being back-paid in the future when an appropriation is made. It is illegal (via the Constitution and clarified in the anti-deficiency act) to obligate money that hasn’t been duly appropriated, and that isn’t happening now.
So either these petty knuckle-dragging tyrants are spending money that has already been appropriated in putting up their stupid barrycades, or they are doing it with the expectation that they’ll be extracting the money from our hides at a future date.
Congress hasn’t appropriated any money for these departments to spend after September 31; it doesn’t matter whether they have money left over in their accounts, they don’t have legal permission to spend it. And they are spending money on things besides salaries.
Bull. Money doesn’t have to be re-authorized to be spent once it has been appropriated. It only goes through the process once. Even 1 year appropriations only need to be 100% obligated (only 75% expended for the OSD) by the end of the first FY.
The Feds aren’t getting any additional money until a new appropriation passes, but all the money they already do have is fine for them to use for anything that has been funded in the previous years appropriation (i.e. not a “new start”). Well, if they weren’t being ordered into a furlough and told not to come to work that is.
There hasn’t been a single year, in my near decade working with the Federal government, in which we had new appropriated funds sent to us any earlier than the 15th of October, often we wouldn’t see any until late October or early November. The first couple weeks of the new FY are always covered by last years appropriation.
You either know all this budget stuff and are lying to maliciously obfuscate the truth for the rest of us, or you are ignorant of the budget stuff and misrepresenting your knowledge with confident statements which you don’t know aren’t true, which is also lying, just a more pathetic, pitiable version.
So driving home, it dawned on me what Obama could barrycade next: The Interstate Highway System.
All of Jim’s and Gerrib’s arguments would work to support the attempt.
So Progressives, go cause some pain and shut it down. Give it a shot. I got popcorn.
The highway system has been deemed essential. Monuments and parks have been deemed non-essential. Do you disagree?
Yes. The highway system is not deemed essential or non-essential. Rather, it is paid for by the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which happens to be funded through next year. That’s exactly the situation Ryan Olcott describes, yet you claim isn’t the case.
So you’ve answered your own question — Obama wouldn’t barricade the highways because the highway system isn’t experiencing a funding gap. But even if it were, it’d be deemed essential, like air traffic control and the FBI.
Mount Vernon isn’t experiencing a funding gap either. So as everyone is starting to note, your pathetic and contradictory arguments of why things are shutdown and not shutdown is bullshit; well except for one argument, that the shutdowns are intended to cause pain. The problem there is two fold. Number one, it shows a willingness of the Democratic Party to politicize the funcitoning of the Executive Branch to coarse by force and negative incentives to the American people to abide by their will. Two, it bolsters the argument of those who fear ACA will lead to a means of controlling the lives of Americans at a fundamental level.
Already, there is a sound bite of Harry Reid saying he doesn’t care about children with cancer. It may lack some context and have been worded poorly, but it is out there. This was caused by the House putting out a simple, clean CR, to fund the NIH. The House isn’t interested in shutting down the NIH. The House isn’t trying to harm any Americans. The House is simply reviewing each budget item on its individual merits. That’s not a novel concept, but it is something that has never been done by this Administration.
I see no sign that the President plans on stopping the #WaronVets or #WaronChildrenwithCancer. Both of those things could be stop in a moment without giving one inch on Obamacare. Neither activity is being caused by the House.
But earlier you said anything connected to the federal government had to be shut down regardless of what any laws or regulations actually say about what government functions need to be closed down. Something being essential or non-essential isn’t the criteria Obama is using when order what gets shut down. He is making his decision based on what generates pain, suffering, and inconvenience remember?
But earlier you said
Hardly.
Something being essential or non-essential isn’t the criteria Obama is using when order what gets shut down
Yes, it is. Look through the shutdown contingency planning documents; they’re full of references to essential vs. non-essential.
Not everyone is buying into your inconsistent arguments.
“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/
The Democrats need to change their name to the Aristocrats cause its all one sick joke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW4mPZmKPM
Well we saved Sesame street:
(CNSNews.com) – On the first day of the “shutdown” of the federal government, when members of the U.S. Senate were going to the well of their house to point out that the shutdown would prevent the National Institutes of Health from starting clinical trials for cancer patients and others facing possibly terminal illnesses, the administration was giving $445,000,000 to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, according to the Daily Treasury Statement.
That means PBS NewsHour, National Public Radio and Sesame Street got a taxpayer subsidy during the shutdown, but not would-be cancer patients at the NIH.
– See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/after-shutdown-administration-gives-445000000-corporation-public#sthash.nDKlzNjs.dpuf
Have to keep the propagandists going at NPR and PBS.
The above post describing how the CPB got a cool $445 million even in the midst of a shutdown makes total hash of Jim’s pathetic arguments that the cuts are fore-ordained.