Indifference to the Troops (Update: Norton Speaks!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Yesterday Patrick brought forth accusations that Obama was deliberately withholding military pay as a political maneuver against Republicans. It was yet another example of budget Kabuki.
But a word of advice to the Democrats. If you are going to play this game, you have to be really careful what you say and do. For instance, Representative Rogers (R-Ky) proposed a bill to fund our troops during the shutdown, and this was the Office of Management and Budget’s official response:
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes….
After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy.
You got that? A bill ensuring that our military gets paid is a distraction. Nice. That sound you just heard was a million Democrats doing a facepalm.
And Eric Cantor’s official blog pounces, saying:
It’s alarming that a bill that funds our troops and could likely pass both the House and the Senate has been termed as a “distraction” by the White House. No one wants to see the government shut down, but Republicans are committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world will be paid if that happens. The White House is directly jeopardizing that.
But at least there is increasing evidence that Obama might be smart enough not to take a vacation in the middle of all of this. Early reports suggested he was considering visiting Williamsburg, Virgina during the weekend, which led a commenter at Ace to say the following:
[Consider] the military crew contingent and ground staff required for an Air Force One Mission. It’s a full flight crew plus hundreds of ground personnel. Special Air Mission teams from Andrews. Multiple C-141 cargo planes (at least two) will fly in advance carrying the Presidential motorcade. There are a thousand servicemen and women in the 89th Airlift Wing who are on station and engaged from flight planning to execution, to conclusion. And not one of them will be paid next week because Obama decided they’re just pawns in his political game.
I am not sure the Obama administration thought about things so deeply when they put the trip into doubt. Still even then the Daily Mail reports that there a no-fly zone is already established, so the military is working to take care of him, in case he wants the weekend off. But making sure their paychecks will keep going forward is a “distraction.”
Oh, and a bit of advice to Congressman Moron Moran. If a military veteran stands up and gives you a tongue lashing over this, don’t get all ornery and resentful. Take it, and then calmly and respectfully explain why you differ with him. In other words, don’t do this:
Look, first, I do think it is fair to say that this Vet’s comments were caustic. I don’t even consider that an insult. And of course decorum needs to exist in these meetings. On the other hand, I don’t think it is fair for Moran to pretend he was just saying it to score points and wasn’t offering a good faith criticism, and that attitude contributed greatly to the breach of decorum. I agree that the man was being caustic, but to pretend that this precluded the possibility that the man was also offering legitimate criticism was uncalled for. He dismissed the man, which was inexcusable.
Of course, Moran has denigrated military service before, asserting that an opponents’ decades of military service didn’t count as public service:
I posted on those comments here and here.
Update: Via the man formally known as College Politico D.C.’s non-voting Congresswoman Elanor Holmes Norton gets very angry about the looming shutdown and inadvertently demonstrates exactly why D.C. should not be allowed to vote in Congress.
There’s a lot to mock and criticize there, but let’s notice this line: “our issues are not the Federal deficit.” The problem with giving D.C. alleged equality in Congress is that there cannot be equality. If given facial equality, the proximity of D.C. residents would eventually mean that they would be treated better than anyone else in the country. As it is D.C. didn’t have the same recession the rest of you had. And thus their parochial concerns would take precedence.
What could be a clearer example than acting as if the Federal deficit isn’t their problem? Ms. Norton you do know your constituents have to pay that, too, right? But she could care less about the national good, and instead only about the harm to D.C. And isn’t that inevitable?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
How is it these dippy government-funded propaganda whores find EPA regulation of carbon dioxide molecules to be a social issue exactly?
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/8/2011 @ 7:52 amObama needs hostages. NObody cares if the Department of Education shuts down.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 4/8/2011 @ 7:53 amThe bill doesn’t just fund the troops in war zones for the rest of the fiscal year. It also funds Pentagon pet projects and support troops in the US and elsewhere. Why doesn’t the GOP come back with a bill that only funds troops in the war zones.
Can anyone explain why, for instance, a supply chain soldier in Germany is an “essential” employee?
Jim (87e69d) — 4/8/2011 @ 7:58 amOr how does the GOP suddenly find social issues to be budget issues important enough not to fund the troops, happyfeet?
Jim (87e69d) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:00 ammike
certainly no one cares if the irs can’t audit.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:03 amWow. Are we watching the same video? That’s exactly what Moran did — he let the man speak (for a looooong time), and then, after thanking the man for his military service, he calmly and respectfully answered the man’s question…. until he was interrupted. That’s when it went all to hell.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:04 amKman
> he calmly and respectfully answered the man’s question
its respectful to say the man’s criticisms were not legitimate?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:12 amHogan’s Heroes facepalm – I love it!
JohnW (9f8fea) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:17 amI insisted the GOP pass a bill to fund the troops, with nothing attached, so the dems would take that and the troops would be paid, instead of being a bargaining chip.
The GOP has attempted this, and the democrats have already quashed the idea as a distraction (as Aaron already said). So I guess there’s nothing politically left to do for the troops except for caving to Obama’s demands.
Here’s the problem with that: the commander in chief is abusing his power to use the welfare of our troops as a bargaining chip. If we allow him to profit from this new power he’s discovered, we are going to see this play made over and over again.
Obama must not profit from threatening the troops. He’s testing the waters, to see if he can pull this off, and we have to make sure he can’t. It’s truly shocking.
frankly, say what you will about John Mccain, or about the consequences of the GOP being represented by a squish, but he wouldn’t have stabbed the troops in the back like Obama has. It’s too late to undo all the damage this has done, but hopefully the public uproar is enough for Obama to apologize and change his mind.
And concept of compromise just went out the window. We can’t negotiate with this kind of crap on the table.
And don’t tell me the troops can handle a little stress. This is an outrage, and it’s already causing a lot of problems for military families who have to plan for this kind of uncertainty.
Obama needs to read the 13th amendment, and any Republican who attempts to offer something that looks like Obama profits from making this extreme move has lost my support.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:20 amHe said the man’s question wasn’t legitimate.
And the question was “why aren’t you there in Congress right now instead of talking to us”?
I don’t think that’s a serious question, no. Because, as Moran (calmly) explained, if something isn’t on the agenda, there’s no point in him being there — he would be just standing in the well of an empty Congress. Which is obvious.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:21 amMoran is pitiful scum.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:23 amA lot of people — myself included — are facing uncertainty because of a shutdown, or even the possibility of a shutdown. Not just military families.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:23 amBullshit. He can lobby for something to get on the agenda. Moran is scum who has repeatedly treated the troops with disrespect. Anyone can hear the hostility at the end of the video. Yeah, the vet continues to speak when told to shut up, but that’s not nearly justification.
Moran also says military service isn’t legit public service. What a bastard! You have any idea what that veteran went through in his three decades? How many wars, or funerals? His body is screwed up now, as a result of service to his country, and you, kman, complain that he talked too long, and say his question is stupid when it’s really just asking Moran to lobby other congressmen instead of promote his own political fortunes.
I’m not surprised.
I think aaron is too fair to Moran in his honest description of the video, btw. He’s hardly covering up the reality here, of a difficult situation for Moran leading to Moran being a jerk.
anyhow, what’s your opinion of Obama’s choices on troop funding? How do you feel about the 13th amendment to the US constitution?
I suspect if a Republican violated the constitution repeatedly to this degree, he’d be impeached.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:27 amKman
> I don’t think that’s a serious question, no.
So he was disrespectful, you just think he deserved the disrespect.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:29 amHere we have a man who would die for his country being told to shut up by his congressman, and Kman’s complaint is that he shouldn’t speak, quote: “for a looooong time”.
I’d explain how this attitude makes me feel, but that is what Kman wants.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:32 amAsk a snarky question, get a snarky answer.
Twas ever thus.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:33 amKman, what’s snarky about his question? You dismiss it as though it’s just a fact Moran had no possible option for pursuing the veteran’s issue other than standing in that town hall.
You say “obvious”, but no, it’s actually completely wrong.
At this point, I guess it’s clear you’re trying very hard to get a rise. Well done. you’re a disgraceful human being. Your freedom to bash this man wasn’t free, and that man’s disabilities are just a small part of the price.
He’s got a right to ask a lengthy question, or defend himself from personal attacks such as Moran leveled.
I guess this is something Kman would rather we focus on than Obama’s choice to screw the finances of our military families. He knows Moran is easily proven to disrespect the troops, so he’s using him as a sacrificial lamb. Either that, or he really hates the troops. Which apparently is a normal condition for a lot of people these days.
Obama’s spitting on the troops right now, as far as I’m concerned. He might as well be sitting in Jane Fonda’s lap for the propaganda value of America not paying her obligations to the troops.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:42 amKman
so you will take back the claim that
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:48 ammoron, er moran was being calm and respectful?As for your own worry about not getting paid, Kman, you really ought to be furious with the Democrats who refused to pass a budget on time back when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House by substantial majorities.
PatHMV (5189f9) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:49 amThe difference is that you’re not being forced to risk your life in a military theater while not getting paid.
Do you work for the government, Kman? If not, you’ll still get your paycheck on schedule. There’s a big difference between facing uncertainty and facing a complete lack of income. But since you want to portray yourself as suffering, feel free to.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:50 amat this point it’s a lot clear that Team R is more concerned with the fetuses than our troops I think
How is that not the case? Why is Team R bickering about fetuses at this late hour? If Team R wants to indulge in their fetus fetish they should maybe give winning a majority in the Senate and the presidency first.
What world are these Team R fetus whores living in? Obama and Reid would be thrilled to death to let Team R shut the government down over abortion.
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:55 amIt’s ridiculous to compare your experience in the USA, worried about the shutdown, to being in Afghanistan, and distracted from your mission because you don’t know if your wife can pay the rent, or make her tuition payment, or get the kids their birthday presents.
I can’t imagine why Kman would suggest this comparison if he weren’t trolling.
But let’s note the imprecision of Kman’s comment. He does this for a reason. He doesn’t work for the government at all.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:56 amAW:
I think he was being calm and respectful up to the interruption. Sure, there’s that little snark/dig just before the interruption, but not to the level of disrespect.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:57 amWHAT?
How do you figure? Obama’s rejecting a bill funding the troops with absolutely no strings attached. It has nothing to do with abortion. There is no link.
Unless you’re saying the GOP should cave to this tactic, thus allowing the troops to be a pawn forever. Is that what you mean? Are you aware Obama has refused to sign a bill doing absolutely nothing but funding the troops? I mean… that’s the post we’re commenting on, so I suppose you do know that, you not being Kman and all.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 8:58 amthe 2010 election were not about Team R’s fetus obsession Mr. Dustin – it was about spending –
if Team R would focus on the spendings, then any government shutdown would be framed in a way that 2012 could adjudicate – instead Team R wants to gay it all up with their Lila Rose agenda
It’s nothing if not revealing.
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:01 amHappyfeet is a piece of trash as usual.
According to Harry Reid opposing government shutdown means you want the government to shutdown.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:01 amMr. Biden if Team R wanted to have a fetus festivus then they should have had Team R run on it in 2010 I think – they didn’t do that – they said their top priority was cutting 100 billion dollars.
Team R lied to us, didn’t they?
yes. Yes they did.
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:05 amWhy should we fund the abortion of black babies and those who might have the so called gay gene?
And the MSM uses the word alledgedly alot even if the victim is for real.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:08 amAnd btw why does crappyfeet get to use the word gay as a slur?
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:12 amIt has everything to do with abortion at this point. That’s the only thing that’s preventing the budget from passing, since the GOP and the Dems are now in agreement about the $$$ aspect. Now, the GOP is trying to put policy issues, like Planned Parenthood funding, into budget riders.
The abortion issue isn’t going to go away. Both sides can fight about it tomorrow, and the day after and the day after. But the budget needs to be passed now so our troops can get paid (among other things).
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:13 amHappyfeet, I don’t think you’re a piece of trash by any stretch. You’re just flippant because you think politics don’t deserve reverence. And generally you’re right.
Anyhow, defunding planned parenthood is probably something most GOP voters are cool with. It’s a great example of a bad government program.
Sure, it’s a drop in the bucket. Sure, the cash could just wind up somewhere else. Look, it’s not like Team R is making abortion illegal. They just note that a major issue in 2010 was that people don’t want to pay for their neighbor’s abortion. That was a pretty frequent cry about Obamacare, after all.
Anyway, I don’t know how to prove which takes priority, be it abortion or the debt bomb. It’s hard to say, and I don’t think this issue forces us to make that choice. It actually should satisfy everybody who doesn’t want to pay for other people’s abortions.
—
Anyway, let’s leave this issue for a second, please. It seems like a good bargaining chip for the GOP to use in negotiations, right? But I insist it not an acceptable way to bargain for our troops to be paid their salaries. Really, nothing but a straight demand is acceptable.
It crosses the line, and if we were to give up something like your Planned Parenthood issue for troop salaries, we are creating a future problem for our troops. That’s too important to ignore.
So, by all means, agitate for the GOP to focus on the budget more than abortion. But before we do that, we need to get this troop salary issue resolved.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:14 amKturdman your phobia to logic stuns me even thought it shouldn’t.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:14 amyou’re a liar, kman. Obama and Reid can see the troops paid without any other issues being affected. There is a bill affecting this one single thing, so you’re a horrible human being to try to leverage our military families for your social issues or other political preferences.
Yeah, no kidding the abortion issue will never go away. Ever. That is a stupid point.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:16 amThe only issue is the budget. This is a budget bill. All the GOP has to do is forget about the Planned Parenthood thing, and the budget ready for Obama’s signature. And then you don’t NEED yet another Continuing Resolution.
In fact, I suspect that is what is going on. The Tea Party is forcing the GOP to stand firm on defunding Planned Parenthood. And that’s what the GOP is doing, and they’ll do so right up until the 11th hour.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:21 amminor nit: the AF hasn’t flown the Star Lizard in years… C-17’s or C-130’s would be the trash haulers for Ear Leader’s overdue vacation.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:22 amBTW, Kman’s claim that planned parenthood funding is the only thing holding back a deal is a brazen lie.
The democrats have claimed deals have been reached over and over again, and every time it turns out they were just trying to shape the narrative.
Right now, it suits Kman to pretend it’s the GOP refusing to make a deal, despite their bending over way farther than seems reasonable to me.
Of course, to Kman, we should just pass the budget Obama wants if we want military families to have food on the table and bills paid. So I guess telling a little white lie is no big deal.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:22 amKman, if the Democrats had done their job last year there would be a budget. It was the Democrats who put politics above their duty.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:23 amregardless of the underlying questions regarding abortion, can someone please give me a good reason why abortions should be funded by the federal government?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:23 amLiar. There is more than one issue in the world. Obama has said that paying the troops is a distraction, but it’s a huge issue for military families and every sane American citizen.
There is a bill specifically funding the troops, you know that, and now you think it’s cute to be a jerk on the internet. I’m sure you feel great about yourself.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:25 amThis point can’t be repeated enough.
Kman can say the budget is the only issue in the world, now, because he doesn’t like the bigger issue being discussed. He doesn’t like that Obama’s a miserable failure as a commander in chief to use his loyal military’s welfare as a bargaining chip.
But the truth is, the democrats failed to pass the budget before the election because they were trying to avoid democratic consequences.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:28 amKman is just an alphabetist who stalks Aaron. He is reduced to the role of the woman in this video:
http://youtu.be/yAyCdfOXvec
“I don’t care. Obama is awesome.”
Same thing when it comes to the economy.
Of course, the troll will insist that he is highly critical of the President. Ahem.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:30 amDustin:
Wow. You don’t get it, do you, Dustin?
Do you even know what a continuing resolution is?
redc1c4:
Abortions are not funded by the federal government per se.
Planned Parenthood is funded (in part) by the federal government, and PP provides many services to low-income people (cancer screening, etc.). Some of those health services include abortions.
Obviously, if you are “pro-life”, you wouldn’t consider an abortion a “health service”, but more like a “death service”. If you are pro-choice, you have a different view. And that’s where the rubber meets the road.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:32 amThe Dems failure to do their job last year is the Republicans fault this year. claims of fetus fetish and Planned Parenthood being the only stumbling block are outright brazen lies, whether being told by an idiot like kmart, or my friend happyfeet.
No matter how hard things like kmart try to shape the narrative, it is clear that the Dems are idling to hold military pay hostage to their pet partisanship.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:35 amKmart just continues, daily, to prove that he/she/it is a fundamentally dishonest sophist.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:37 amAnd everyone who doesn’t pick this issue up now is letting our military down. It’s their asses that paid for our right to bloviate endlessly (me rambling more than most). We might as well do so for them.
Frankly, I hope to see democrats helping, writing their congressmen, and just plain speaking out on Obama’s choice. This is issue #1 for me. The budget can go f— itself until the troops and their families can rely on America to meet her end of an extremely lopsided agreement.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:44 amthe fetuses are definitely not the only stumbling block but the fetuses should be off the table – they are simply not germane to a discussion of the final half of this year’s budget
These budget talks might could have usefully framed the differences between Team R and the socialists on spending, but instead the talks have become a social con circus, and for what I ask you? Zagnuts!
There is zero chance of these talks producing a defunding of planned parenthood, and everyone and their little puppy dog knows it.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:45 amYeah, what’s that got to do with anything? Sure, the GOP included troop funding in the House passed CR, but there is also a bill solely for funding the troops. No other strings attached. And you know that, and are lying.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:47 amKman, the “rubber met the road” last October when the fiscal year began and the Democrats had failed to pass a budget for FY2011 …
despite controlling the White House, the House and the Senate.
Democrats failed at their fundamental duty and they lost control of the budget process as a result of their failure. Obama himself preened about winning an election. Tough titties.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:50 amWe know Obama’s preference, he would rather let a fetus die, than let a soldier get paid, for they
narciso (cfef6a) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:52 amare just ‘bitter clingers’ who are intentionally ‘air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians’
the last was Kerry’s contribution,
Well, this post for one thing. HR 1363 is the bill AW mentions.
Really? What’s that bill?
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:53 amIn case anyone cares, Jim is in moderation crying up a storm because — as I already told him — he is getting a comment vacation until Monday, for renewing his claim that I deserve to be told “f*ck you” and be attacked personally, including slams on my ability to do my job. He is also busy misrepresenting who started making things personal (hint: it was him).
Against my better judgment, I will start approving his comments again on Monday. I may even retroactively approve the non-personal ones.
Patterico (906cfb) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:53 amOnce again, we see Kman proudly opining while ignorant of what he is opining upon.
Good job of proving you are not stalking, Kman. Good job. What bill? Hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:54 amOh: you’re not missing much. Even his non-personal comments are mostly dishonest.
Patterico (906cfb) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:54 amAnd that’s why, Patterico, its against your better judgement and my so-so judgement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:55 amThey are arguing over approximately $38,000,000,000 in cuts when there is a deficit in excess of $1,500,000,000,000. We are talking about rounding errors, yet the demagoging by the Left is breathless, and incessant.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 9:55 amlet me rephrase the question for k-man: why should the federal government provide any funding to planned parenthood?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:01 amNo, I’m asking him to back up his statements. He’s saying there’s a bill out there relating to payment of the troops that’s somehow NOT related to the budget/government shutdown.
He may be right — I’d just like to know what he’s talking about.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:03 amShirley you can’t be serious,
narciso (cfef6a) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:06 amKman, its the sixth line of the post, you blithering moron.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:06 amredc1c4:
The government traditionally gives assistance of all sorts (health, food, housing, education, etc) to low income people.
But I suspect you probably know the arguments for and against these government programs.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:07 amOMB was referring to what, kmart. Air? Imaginary ideas?
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:08 amSorry, but the PP argument works both ways…you can frame it as the democrats caring more about abortion than funding the military, but you can certainly also make the argument that the republicans should have never put anything in there about abortion…the abortion battle can be waged another day…why let ANYTHING jeopardize a deal for the military?
Ellen (a13e9f) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:09 amNo, it’s not. That is a continuing resolution. That’s a bill that deals with troop funding that is related to the budget battle going on right now. Dustin says he is referring to some other bill not related to the budget battle.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:09 amSPQR’s quite right. Obama has dismissed a measure to pay the troops as a distraction.
I’m not linking this to answer Kman, but rather for others.
Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011
I realize this is a bit of a maneuver, just to prove the inevitably douchey response that a bill with a single pixel beyond saying ‘we’ll pay the troops’ doesn’t count.
I guess the GOP saw that script too.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:12 amEllen – it is abject BS to accept the dishonest framing that this is just due to Planned Parenthood.
Kmart is fundamentally dishonest.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:14 amKman, your little act where you move the goal post when you get your ass kicked fools no one …
except yourself evidently.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:16 amNo, that’s not true.
The fact there’s a deal for the military to get its salaries to ‘jeopardize’ at all at all shows an unbelievable depravity on the part of the democrats.
You can’t seriously construe this battle as the GOP happily using the troops as a pawn. That’s just not what’s happening.
Also, that bill I linked has a counterpart in the Senate that has 51 Senators already sponsoring it.
So yeah, Harry Reid and Obama absolutely own this issue of refusing to pay the troops.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:17 amYeah, that’s another continuing resolution.
And yes, it IS a distraction to the budget process because it just kicks the can down the road.
If Dustin wants so desperately for the troops to get paid (a noble desire, and one with which I concur), he will urge Republican Congressman to sign on to the current budget proposal (which met the GOP’s latest demands) and STOP trying to attach on the Planned Parenthood things as an ornament.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:24 amLiar, Kman.
That bill has absolutely no strings attached.
Of course it is a funding measure in lieu of a budget. Do you know know a continuing resolution is? That’s what I always said it was.
This bill is less than half a page long, and you couldn’t be bothered to read it. But I didn’t link it to answer your point, because SPQR is right anyway.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:27 amIn other words, this bill doesn’t defund planned parenthood, but funds the troops. It has no impact on the rest of the budget. It literally has no point aside from making sure the troops are paid their salaries.
And Kman obviously thinks there is no legitimate way for the troops to be paid unless the democrats get their laundry list of requests. What a POS.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:29 amJD, my thinking is not a result of Kman. Anything that touches on PP or abortion is guaranteed to start a battle…just keep it out so the dems have one less item to rail against. Of course they want the fight, why give them any ammo? Dustin, I will check out your link.
Ellen (a13e9f) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:32 amThat is the bill.
that’s it. It defines a term and sets a date, and has a summary. It is not exactly War and Peace.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:33 amDo I expect Kman to admit he was extremely in error? I don’t even care if he does.
Perhaps actually having to link to it is is difficult. Here it is, and clearly there are no strings attached. Notice the date, too. That President Obama would use the military as pawns is disgraceful. I cannot imagine our military men and women’s frustration at seeing their Commander in Chief treating them with so little respect, and frankly, so abhorrently.
H. R. 1297
To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 31, 2011
Mr. GOHMERT (for himself and Mr. KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 2. EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DURING FUNDING GAP IMPACTING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) Appropriation of Funds for Military Pay and Allowances- During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard), out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during the funding gap.
(b) Funding Gap Defined- In this section, the term `funding gap’ means any period of time after the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or full-year appropriations for the personnel accounts of the Armed Forces for that fiscal year have not been enacted.
(c) Duration of Transfer Authority- No transfer may be made by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (a) after December 31, 2011.
Dana (17ee3b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:35 amI just read it, Dustin…sounds pretty straightforward to me…why is this a “distraction”?!
Ellen (a13e9f) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:35 amThanks, Ellen. I do understand where you’re coming from, and I also don’t expect you to automatically have mastery of this issue, given the dedication many have in confusing it.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:35 amIt’s not “in lieu” of a budget. There’s going to be a budget at some point. It is merely a funding measure in lieu of a budget passed TODAY.
But why bother with a funding measure in lieu of a budget passed today, when the GOP could just pass the budget… today?
But the GOP doesn’t want to do that:
Oh well, troops. Pence wants to hold up your pay. Talk to him.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:37 amHonestly, I bet a lot of people just can’t fathom this being an issue, so they assume people like me must be hiding something.
Frankly, that’s a lot easier to swallow than the truth.
I’m sincerely worried this stunt will be repeated unless it fails this time.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:37 amNope. read the bill.
It’s only for a funding gap.
Just admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:38 amH. R. 1297
To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 31, 2011
Mr. GOHMERT (for himself and Mr. KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DURING FUNDING GAP IMPACTING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) Appropriation of Funds for Military Pay and Allowances- During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard), out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during the funding gap.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:42 am(b) Funding Gap Defined- In this section, the term `funding gap’ means any period of time after the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or full-year appropriations for the personnel accounts of the Armed Forces for that fiscal year have not been enacted.
(c) Duration of Transfer Authority- No transfer may be made by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (a) after December 31, 2011.
If Mr. Obama wants to reduce any harm from a shutdown, he also has the ability to do so. The Justice Departments of two previous Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Mr. Clinton, issued opinions with expansive views of what the executive branch could spend money on even during a shutdown. Social Security checks could still be issued, the troops could still be funded, and agencies that rely on user fees could also stay open, for example.
Yet this White House is pitching this shutdown as if it will do untold damage to the country. This fits a political strategy designed to blame Republicans as reckless radicals.
Kman, POTUS could make sure the military get paid – why won’t he?
Dana (17ee3b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:42 amKman the troop hating marxhole is blaming others for not caring about the troops his ilk spit on as baby killers………….explain that?
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:42 amWhere in the hell does it say anything about Planned Parenthood?
Why is that the meme on the media, with Kman and happyfeet-hell I was starting to believe it.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:43 amWait a second. HR 1297 hasn’t passed the House. And do you know why? Because Boehner didn’t bring it up for a vote. That’s not Obama’s fault. He can’t sign a bill that Republicans are holding up.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:44 amPence isn’t the GOP, Kman. He’s one man. And I have no idea when he said what your source claims he said, since it offers absolutely no original material or links.
So I’m pretty sure you scoured the internet and this is the best you could find. Yes, I freely submit that many Republicans insist on defunding Planned Parenthood.
Hell, Pence is a cosponsor of the bill Kman is claiming Pence opposes. That bill has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. That bill funds the troops regardless of Planned Parenthood being funded or defunded. Pence has acted to pay the troops no matter what happens, and Kman describes that as this
No, Kman. You are a liar. You’re screwing around with such a serious issue. I realize the entire point is to provoke me, but I would fight for your right to say this crap. In fact, you have no idea just how ironic I find this situation.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:44 amnice non-answer k-man, not that i, or anyone else here, expected anything more from you…
and, BTW, it appears your friends at pp DON’T do cancer screenings…
any other smoke you wanna try to blow, or are you fully spun up now?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:44 amthis is a test. It appears none of the comments I’ve attempted to post here this morning have shown up. I’d like to determine if I’m stuck in a site filter or if the comments are not even getting that far. thanks
elissa (dc9cd8) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:46 amOy. Sorry I was off reading the bill before Dana had the same idea to just post the bill.
Please delete my comment. Plus for some weird reason I thought the vet questioning Moran was an old video. I guess I just automatically know that Moran has always been a jackass to the military and that it was old news. I don’t know why I made that assumption.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:46 amit is amusing how someone can bet pounded flat on the internet, whether on a blog or in a news group, and still proclaim, apparently with a straight face, that they are winning the argument.
not even Charlie Sheen has that much gall.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:51 amYeah, why did you not already know that? Are you incapable of the slightest degree of research?
Yes, it’s urgent we fast track this bill. That’s what I’ve been saying on this blog since last night.
Good Lord.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:52 amKman, I will ask you again:
POTUS could make sure the military get paid – why won’t he?
Dana (17ee3b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:53 amDustin, let me explain this to you in simple terms.
There’s the budget battle, right? And both sides need to reach an agreement before the government shuts down. Why haven’t they reached an agreement? Well, at this point, it’s a matter of the GOP trying to add riders onto the budget — things like not funding Planned Parenthood.
You with me so far?
Ok. So it was looking like we were going to have to shut down the government, and there were several bills (two in the Senate and two in the House, I believe) that said, “Okay. If we have to shut down the government, let’s AT LEAST pay the troops”. There are continuing resolutions.
But the one that passed the house, HR 1363, had all kinds of crap added to it.
The bill you’re talking about is clean — you’re right about that — but the House didn’t pass that.
MY POINT is — rather than passing continuing resolutions which only extend the budget negotiations, why not pass the budget? The GOP wanted $38 billion in cuts; the Dems wanted $30 billion. Now that Dems and the GOP are BOTH at $38 billion (the Dems caved). So why are we talking about continuing resolutions at all?
But no, the GOP has to hold on to their Planned Parenthood stance.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:55 amWell here is a link to the roll call votes for this Congress it takes you through today and if you click on the link at the bottom of the page it takes you to March 30th.
clerk-house.gov-2011 index
It does look like there hasn’t been a roll call vote on that particular bill yet.
However-in the past with other bills I have noticed about a 24 hour lag before.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:55 amFrankly, the reason it’s a clusterfark is because no one seriously expected this issue to occur until just a few days ago, and until just a couple days ago, it wasn’t clear Obama meant to keep the troops without pay.
so yes, the bill SPQR and Aaron and others are pointing to, which does fund DoD is the bill Boehner wants to pass, and recently, as in the last 120 minutes, he’s been giving attention to this alternative bill that takes pains to just cut this one specific issue out in the starkest sense.
So there’s an issue of the decision loop. I’m sure a lot of democrats are loving this chaos and agitation, and like Kman, hope they can blame cosponsors of either bill for not being on the alternative one. I’m expecting them to resolve this today, though.
Folks: it wouldn’t hurt to call your congressmen and mention HR 1297. We already know for sure we have the votes in the Senate (if Reid brings it to a vote), so that’s not so important.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:57 amI didn’t know that was the bill you were talking about. That’s why I asked you what you were talking about.
Well, how is that OBAMA is the bad guy then? If this bill is so great, shouldn’t you be angry with Boehner?
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:58 amthere he goes again… the Republican party wants a whole lot more than $38 billion in cuts… at least the non-0RINO wing does.
$38 billion in cuts is a joke.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2011 @ 10:58 amToo much time wasted with Kman.
It was clear that the vet in the audience was upset, but isn’t he right to be? Moran’s characterizing it as “caustic” I think was insensitive, and then implying his comments were not legitimate was inviting a shouting match. A disabled veteran should be angry at the prospect of troops not getting paid while Congress is on vacation (with pay).
And then to blame shift to the repubs, the world supply of Chutzpah is at an all time low. As SPQR said, the Dems had both houses of Congress and the presidency and they couldn’t/wouldn’t pass a budget, then Obama presents a budget which is a farce when he speaks of the need to control spending and the deficit. Obama is clearly more interested in playing politics and remaining in power than governing the country.
The reality is this will be a nasty battle no matter what. The Dems and their allies will continue to act as if every cut is “severe and irresponsible” no matter how little compared to what really needs to be cut, so no matter where the repubs start it will be met with screaming.
But if the election in Wisconsin has broader meaning, it may be that people are coming to the understanding that it’s time to get serious about being responsible with spending.
So, if the military goes without pay and the President takes his trip, what do you think the consequences would be for soldiers/airmen/airwomen/airpeople putting their hands out for some change when he walks by? Do you think the support they would get from the public and the political repercussions for the pres. would make their being busted worth it?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:00 amNo, I’m not ready to bother with your general blaming, and framing everything.
You need to explain to me how in the hell you get off claiming Pence opposed the bill he’s a cosponsor of, and how you have any credibility on this topic if you can’t be bothered to click a single link and read a really short bit of info.
I know you think you’re really interesting, but it’s actually just dumb. It’s clear you are not well informed on this issue.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:00 amYes, MD. Every time I engage Kman it’s a waste of time. But if I don’t, he spreads lies. Just this thread is crammed with them.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:01 amMD in Philly
Ya it’s really bad because that vet is trying to stick up for guys and their families that h knows from personal experience are way too busy just trying to get from day-to day…
Honestly-for him to get treated like that-actually to be truthful I couldn’t watch it all….
But when he was simply trying to defend the military out in the field-and not his own interests…
It’s awful.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:04 amDana:
If I read the Statement of Admin Policy from the OMB correctly (AW’s link in the main post), Obama would sign a continuing resolution which allowed military payment, if it was “clean” (like presumably, HR 1297, that Dustin loves so much).
But that’s not what the House GOP passed. They passed that monstrosity, HR 1363.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:04 amDustin,
I did not mean to belittle your responding to him. It is true that one doesn’t like to see BS go unchallenged. The trick we need to work on is how to display the truth in a way that does not encourage his ongoing comments, and it is a trick that is hard to do and often leaves us looking like the Hogan’s Heros characters.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:08 am“They passed that monstrosity, HR 1363.”
What precisely is monstrous about it. Go ahead and site the section and subsections, so I can read it myself.
You know… unlike you, I read things and don’t lie about bills as you lied about 1297.
Show me a link to Obama promising anything like this, rather than lying about Aaron’s link (a claim Obama refuses to do something because of X is not a promise to do something if not X. Of course).
Thanks. I didn’t get to that element, but he looks like a recent platoon sergeant or higher, and he’s obviously worried about his unit and the guys who are out there needing some support. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands like those people. And he’s getting disrespected for that. Kman claims Moran can’t do anything but sit in an empty room, so that justifies disrespect.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:09 amWTF??? I didn’t say that Pence opposed the bill he’s co-sponsor of.
Pence’s bill was a continuing resolution TO the budget, not the budget itself. Pence’s stand on the budget itself is that he will hold it hostage in order to defund Planned Parenthood. Two different things.
Again, your statements reveal that you don’t understand the process. You don’t know what a continuing resolution is and/or you don’t understand the difference between that and the budget process, and how they relate.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:10 amKman
(like presumably, HR 1297, that Dustin loves so much)
RIght. The implication being that you don’t like it.
See Kman let’s try this-
(like presumably abortions for poor people, that Kman loves so much)
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:11 amKman
Why do you have to get snarky about something that supposedly you don’t have beef with-I actually think it implies that you do have a problem with it.
All Democrats have done so far from Obama’s email blast to Jim Moran is reveal their distain for the military. What’s astonishing is that they don’t even seem to realize that.
If that’s what Boehner is doing,- your Democrats are getting played and their performance is revealing something ugly.
Obama and Moran can’t even see what their responses look like from any other perspective.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:16 amBecause it ties paying the military with a laundry list of GOP defunding demands. Defunding EPA programs, health and human services programs, etc. Do look at it — it’s 200 pages long.
Follow AW’s link and read, lazy ass. “The Administration” = Obama.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:17 amHeh. Of course not. I honestly have no idea how to approach Kman, but I guess it’s not really important. He’s an excellent display of the attitude Obama shares. Lie lie lie, and when caught, ignore it, insult someone, start a new lie lie lie.
Granted, it’s quite a distraction.
I just want to reiterate something, because despite me trying to make clear I wasn’t answering Kman, he has tried to pretend 1297 was mentioned to relieve some kind of flaw with 1363.
Here’s a link to 1363.
I can’t paste it in here because it’s much longer. Unlike 1297, it doesn’t highlight this one specific outrage, because it funds all of our department of defense.
Kman claims there’s something horrible about 1363, but I date him to show me what that is. This bill funds our military. That’s all. Obama has us in 3 wars, and our troops do need a military operation beyond their salaries.
So here’s the problem. This bill has been passed, and is waiting for the Senate to bother to wake up and vote on it (it easily has the votes to pass). This bill solves the military pay issue, and has nothing to do with planned parenthood that I can see.
so Kman is absolutely lying to suggest that Planned Parenthood is an issue holding up troop pay. It’s much easier to prove it with the much shorter, specific bill, but it’s true either way.
It’s your money, so check the bill out. The words “abortion” or “planned” or “parenthood” do not appear.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:17 amI read the whole thing. It’s extremely short. I’m guessing you didn’t read it, because nowhere does it promise to sign 1297, or anything. How many lies are you going to tell?
It explains the intent to wait for the budget agreement in exchange for any progress on troop pay. So actually, my summary is exactly right, and yours is exactly wrong. And yet you’re personally insulting me.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:20 amAndrew Stiles at NRO has posted this: 1:49 Eastern.
Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said he would be prepared to quickly draft another short-term continuing resolution if necessary to keep the government open while the details of a final package are put together.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:23 amYou’re just plain wrong. You haven’t read the bill. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Dustin, this is the last time. Read and understand.
Planned Parenthood is sticking point in the budget negotiations. If the budget passes, there is no threat of a government shutdown (and no need for a continuing resolution, like 1297 or 1363). If there is no government shutdown, then (among other things) the troops get paid.
Tell me you understand that. If you don’t, that’s fine. I just need to know that whether you understand that or not.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:24 amI have it open right now. I have repeatedly asked you to point to what you’re talking about. Please do so.
Oh shut up.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:25 amIt promises to sign a “clean” bill, i.e., one with no ties. And guess which bill that is (you should know — after all, YOU described it as having no ties).
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:26 amI’ll take that as a “no, I don’t understand what the hell is going on”
That’s cool. No harm, no foul.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:27 amAh, I’m seeing it now, on division B.
Yeah, I’m looking through this and I see nothing that justifies how pissed off Kman is about this bill, but I admit 1363 does indeed fund more than DoD.
Kman, you still need to point to what section in 1363 you object to, specifically. Seriously. You’ve been caught lying in this thread at least 6 times, so the least you can do is tell the truth once.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:28 amHe’s either a fool or a knave, and I’m really leading toward the latter camp:
chris matthews (cfef6a) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:29 amKman
Let’s assume you are correct for how long would Planned Parenthood have to suspend operations?
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:30 amThis is pathetic, Kman. You keep making this claim about planned parenthood. The reason I called foul is that it’s not mentioned in 1363 as far as I can tell, though it’s possible I’ve missed it.
I’ve repeatedly asked you to specify the section of 1363 you’re objecting to. You claimed it was horrible, and I want to know why.
I’m still waiting. so far it seems like an honest effort to fund the government.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:30 amMy objection is that it is not a clean bill. It pays the troops (a good thing), but it also attempts to lock Democrats by forcing them to commit them to certain budget levels for various programs.
That said, I’m done discussing this with you Dustin.
I appreciate that you finally admitted you were wrong, but it’s clear to me that this conversation is beyond you and you don’t understand the process. And I’m obviously not a credible source (in your eyes) to get you up to speed.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:33 amYeah, I understand this really well. The troops should be paid whether you get your planned parenthood funding, or Obama gets his vacation, or not. Period. Obama is ordering men and women into harms way, and you’re asking me if I understand that they don’t get paid unless a budget compromise is reached. It’s disgusting.
Also, when are you going to admit your mistakes in this thread? Just admit you lied about Pence. Come on. Show a little good faith. You made that up to be nasty, right?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:34 amOh, wow, the CR tries to get Democrats to commit to certain program levels for a fiscal year that they never bothered to adopt a budget for when they held all houses of congress and the White House …
poor babies. They are so unappreciated.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:36 amIt wouldn’t necessarily be mentioned in 1363, Dustin (although it might be). This is my point. You don’t understand the difference between the budget (where PP is a sticking point), and continuing resolutions to the budget (temporary provisions in case the government shuts down). That’s why I can’t have a conversation with you about it.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:37 amYou can’t have a conversation about it, Kman, because you have not been conversing honestly about it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:38 amWe have a right to be caustic with this filth we have in Congress.
Filth who continues to spend our money buying votes to keep them in power.
And there is nothing wrong speaking the truth. Democrat or Republican.
Torquemada (fccc6f) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:39 amWell of course you are. You have said a lot of things in this thread that aren’t accurate.
The reason I’m not repeatedly announcing I’ve won the argument is because I don’t need to act like that.
You were wrong repeatedly, and simply ignored those points like a child, and since I did not memorize a lengthy bill and show intellectual honesty about it, now I’m too stupid to talk to. I think we can all see that you’re actually running scared, Kman.
I’m still waiting for you to point to anything in 1363 that is offensive. I reject the notion that it’s somehow ruinous for Planned Parenthood to pass a bill that you can’t even show mentions it, or that it’s somehow a big breach of process to pass a CR. You have established rules with no purpose but casting blame. I’m more worried about making sure the troops get paid, rather than finding a way to pretend it’s not Obama’s fault.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:40 amI honestly have no idea how to approach Kman, but I guess it’s not really important. He’s an excellent display of the attitude Obama shares. Lie lie lie, and when caught, ignore it, insult someone, start a new lie lie lie.
You approach the commenter politely, you counteract the lies with facts and truth presented clearly and rationally. You resist the temptation to respond emotionally (especially with anger or belittlement, which only reflects you are not in control), or with name calling. You tenaciously and without hesitation point out dishonest tactics and lies with irrefutable facts and evidence. Don’t give any validation to the pokes and prods and efforts to cause you to lose sight of the issue (their intent) by getting caught up in the emotional snares.
In the bigger picture, this is how the left wins: they assume the narrative, and control it – not with facts or proof, but by shrieking louder and longest and pack it full of emotional accusations. The right reflexively, assuming a position of defensiveness, and reacts with outbursts of anger, indignation, shock, disbelief, blah, blah, instead of steadfastly pushing the facts and the truth – and letting those overcome the left’s wall of self-righteous assumption of holding the true narrative. So much time seems to be wasted responding to the drama of the left with our own drama. Very Pavlovian. Who’s in control then?
Dana (9f3823) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:42 amExcept…. you just did announce it, clever boy. I saw what you did there.
🙂
Have a good weekend.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:45 am… and yes Aaron, while wishing it don’t make it so — I do wish filth like Mr Moran death that is both painful and slow.
Because, while I wish that all people were inherently good and decent. They are not. And bad things happening to bad people for reasons of God or karma is WONDERFUL!
It serves as a stop sign to the millions of people who sit on the fence when it comes to doing right and could go either way.
Torquemada (fccc6f) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:45 amSo i didn’t keep track of the back and forth with kman, but his argument is that basically the republicans haven’t given obama a defense only option.
except his own administration said otherwise:
> The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes.
I mean if there was something really objectionable in those “other purposes” wouldn’t that have been the time to mention it?
So Kman is putting up a defense the obama administration hasn’t availed itself of. wow, that is devotion.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:49 amAssume everything the Democrats tell you, is a lie, and you’re better off;
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/04/07/6-pages-of-obamacare-equals-429-pages-of-regulations
chris matthews (cfef6a) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:50 amHas anyone anywhere done a cost/benefit analysis of “defunding Planned Parenthood?” Just curious.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:51 amKmart is beyond being just fundamentally dishonest. BArcky’s OMB stated that he would veto the absolutely “clean” bill to fund military pay as it is a distraction, and kicks the can down the road. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. Period. End of story. Funny how the leftists now seem to care about clean legislation, not filled with riders, etc ….
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 11:54 amDana, I really appreciate that comment. I won’t hide the fact that Kman has gotten under my skin on an issue that is important to me. I know the rest of you also know people who are affected by this measure, too.
All I can say is that I empathize greatly with the frustration felt by that veteran Moran was bashing. These congressmen are well paid for their services, and they have nothing but excuses.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:06 pmJD:
Wrong. Here’s the language from the OMB letter (see AW’s main post for link):
As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.
[Emphasis mine]
It’s not a promise that he would sign, but it certainly sounds like he is agreeable to signing a clean CR.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:06 pmThe Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.
For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the Government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly Government shutdown. It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President’s desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.
If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.
YOU ARE A LIAR kmart. Objectively.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:08 pmArguing over saving 38 billion when the deficit will be over 1.5 trillion suggests how unserious they are in finding savings and negotiating in good faith.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:09 pmThe Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.
For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the Government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly Government shutdown. It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President’s desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.
If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:11 pmYa admittedly I have dyslexia so I fell for Kman’s argument that the bill ADDS all kinds of unnecessary stuff,-riders-whatever.
Here’s the damn long form written out text-in pdf of H.R. 1363-
H.R. 1363-pdf.
All it does is fund the ongoing serious operations of the military.
There is no mention of Planned Parenthood there is mention of missiles, CIA, UAVs
you know stuff to keep the military not only paid but alive.
So simply H.R 1363 is emergency funding to keep the troops alive.
There is no permanent commitment defunding Planned Parenthood by signing off on this bill.
I scanned the whole damn thing.
You’re welcome Kman to tell me where in the hell the Bill H.R.1363 “accomplishes” anything other than emergency funding for the military.
The damn thing is “searchable.”
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:11 pmDustin,
It’s difficult not to have our buttons pushed, but what is at stake is so much more important than wasting time reacting personally, which is a much different animal than reacting passionately and with true righteous indignation. Too many astute people here get continually caught up in the emotional argument and subsequent pissing contest, thus losing their edge in staying laser-focused on the facts and evidence supporting a position. Makes me nuts to see a great argument dissolve into such a waste of time.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:11 pmThe OMB statement begins with their expression of strong opposition against 1363, and ends with their declarative statement that they will veto. To suggest that amounts to support, as kmart does, stands the English language on it’s ear.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:13 pmHere’s just Title I
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARYPERSONNEL, ARMY
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:15 pminterest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active duty, (except members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; or members of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97– 377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund.
Towards the end, there’s a lot of non military stuff. Search for “agriculture” and you’ll find it. I don’t even think Kman knew that for sure, but now he’ll note it because I pointed it out to him when I corrected myself on this same point.
I made the same mistake. The way it’s outlined makes it very difficult to find, which is why I asked Kman to explain where the offending portions are. The truth is, none of this stuff I’ve found is actually offensive. And there’s nothing about Planned Parenthood, as far as I know.
Kman’s objection is that he wants a huge showdown over the whole budget. If we don’t pass a budget Obama’s way, then everything else is just a distraction. so passing this completely tame continuing resolution is not objected to for any specific reason, but rather because it’s critical to keep the framing right for blaming Republicans. It’s basically just an match of egos. I see very little policy at stake here. Compared to Paul Ryan’s budget, this is just silly.
That’s really the bottom line here. This is silly. But it’s not silly for our troops. Obama is refusing anything until he gets the whole agreement, and he knows this forces the GOP to abandon cuts. Reid isn’t really offering anything but a spending increase (a few billion short of the increase Obama asked for).
The way Kman argues is very effective at making this problem happen. He’s told so many lies in this thread, that you feel like you’re screwing up not to reference a bunch of them. but doing that is extremely messy, and he’ll just ignore it, while creating another thing to argue against.
This is a serious, interesting issue. We shouldn’t have to prove Pence is opposed to troop funding on its own. We shouldn’t have to deal with so much bad faith.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:19 pmmadawaskan:
It starts at page 163, mada. It sets limits on the funding of all kinds of non-military government programs, $12 billion dollars worth (I believe I read).
I don’t know if 1363 includes limits on Planned Parenthood or not (it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s not mentioned by name) — it does definitely include some health programs for low-income families (Sec 435 or around there).
But again, my point was that Planned Parenthood was the sticking point in the budget negotiations. These bills aren’t the budget — they’re CRs.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:20 pmMadawaskan, after “division b”.
Granted this is basically a bill for funding the military, but they added some other things, and I really wish the outline was easier to comprehend. I literally had to read about 95% of the bill before I found this.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:21 pmAgain, proving how fundamentally dishonest kmart is. OMB has. Stated they oppose, and would veto.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:23 pmJR:
I didn’t say that they would support 1363. I said they would support 1297, which is a CLEAN continuing resolution.
Again, I feel like I’m talking to someone who doesn’t understand terms, etc.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:24 pmIf you think at kmart and it’s ilk will be any less mendoucheous when we are discussing actual cuts … HA! This is meaningless, and a direct result of the Dems cowardice in the face of the 2010 elections.
All of this caterwauling is over 38 billion in cuts to a 3.5 trillion dollar budget, that is 1.5 trillion+ in deficit. Their spleen venting and hyperventilation is just starting.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:26 pmI feel like I am talking to a liar. I was clear what I was discussing. You are a liar. Demonstrably. Objectively.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:27 pmTITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TESTAN DEVALUATION,
ARMY
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND
DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND
•HR 1363 EH
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.
SEC. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions
of law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not apply to personnel of the Department of Defense:
Provided, That salary increases granted to direct and indi- ect hire foreign national employees of the Department of
Defense funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess
of the percentage increase authorized by law for civilian
employees of the Department of Defense whose pay is
computed under the provisions of section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code, or at a rate in excess of the percent-
age increase provided by the appropriate host nation to
its own employees, whichever is higher: Provided further,
That, in the case of a host nation that does not provide
1
salary increases on an annual basis, any increase granted
by that nation shall be annualized for the purpose of applying the preceding proviso: Provided further, That this section shall not apply to Department of Defense foreign
service national employees.
******
This is where it gets really exciting and you get to read where they don’t want to pay for guy’s working for the state Department that are Turkish and alcohol at military bases.
The humanity!
There isn’t any damn thing about we won’t be able to kill babies for decades!
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:31 pmYou said that I said that Obama would approve 1363 (see comment #137). I never said. When I said Obama would sign a clear CR, I was talking about 1297 (see comment #110).
Your inability to comprehend and/or follow the topic does not mean that *I* am a “liar”, JR.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:33 pmDustin
Damnit seriously?
I went to the pdf form because…
Well I’ll go look for Division B…in the long form the outline stuff is..well hard.
I admit it!
Aaaaargh-I just got done readin’ about Turks and booze lookin’ for it…
Gawd.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:34 pmmada, see my comment #140.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:35 pmMad, this is a great reason to support HR 1297.
Sadly, JD is completely right about Obama’s choice not to sign such a bill, but we can pray that he’s pressured to change, or at least the troops know the Senate and House didn’t agree tot aht.
BTW, don’t let Kman gloat. he was ridiculously wrong about 1297, a handful of words, and it took me a while to read 1363. It’s a difference in character, on full display.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:39 pmObama will sign a bill, if it doesn’t try to do a bunch of other things as well.
Of course, that requires Congress to PASS such a bill. HR 1297 would work. Senate Bill 721 and 724 are also good — 3 paragraphs and does the job.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:49 pmand just another point, if 1297 doesn’t pass soon, or if it passes with the riders tacked onto 1363, then we do need to hold GOP leadership in the House responsible.
I just called my congressman, and the intern doesn’t think there’s going to be a vote on it today because of attempts to pass the budget (playing by the OMB playbook).
Honestly, we have to hold Boehner accountable for this. I’m actually a fan of his leadership so far, even if it hasn’t been perfect.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:52 pmKman
OK I just saw your page reference now.
So I’ll go back and look that way.
I just scanned through Division B and I can’t see where it would be except for maybe here:
‘‘SEC. 433. Notwithstanding sections 101, 203, and
285, amounts are provided for ‘Department of Health and
Human Services—Health Resources and Services Administration—Health Resources and Services’ at a rate for operations of $6,982,520,000: Provided, That the eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, and twenty-fifth provisos under such heading in division D of Public Law 111– 117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act25
*********
I thought federal funds couldn’t be used for abortion anyway especially in reference to the Hyde Amendment.
I have no idea what organizational umbrella Planned Parenthood would fall under for funding except under Health…
And still this question remains- for what length of time would H.R. 1363 “defund” Planned Parentood?
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 12:54 pmIt can’t, but PP handles things besides abortions (like cancer screening, etc.).
And the theory is, if you fund Planned Parenthood for those other things, you are freeing up money for abortions. So effectively, the government is funding abortions, albeit indirectly.
It’s not 1363. It’s the budget itself. And I presume that the GOP wants to defund it permanently.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:02 pmOK here is section 435 written out in the long form:
***
‘SEC. 435. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts
are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human
Services—Administration for Children and Families—Low Income Home Energy Assistance’ at a rate for operations
of $4,709,672,000, of which $200,000,000 shall be for
payments under section 2602(e) of the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Act of 1981.
*****
That still doesn’t tell me much to be honest and it doesn’t tell me anything about how long Planned Parenthood would have to remain-“unfunded”.
Wouldn’t it at maximum only take you out 5 1/2-because I know from the military that the “fiscal year” ends –
30 September.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:02 pmWitness kmart’s mendoucheity today. Imagine what it will be like when the cuts are more than a rounding error.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:08 pmOk, Kman saw your last comment I really don’t see how this bill would be holding over to the next fiscal year…
So I think some Republican had the response that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is 90% abortion.
And now it’ a slight of hand or shuffling of funds within Planned Parenthood.
I can’t remember on what grounds the Hyde Amendment found that federal funds could not be used for abortion-is it’s power only statutory or does it have other legal support?
Essentially Planned Parenthood found a loophole-and now Democrats are mad that their go-around is being closed.
Even though what they are up to is going around a previous legislative act.
Ugh, what a mess.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:09 pmI hate to sound like a broken record, but you’re kind of forcing me.
The business with Planned Parenthood defunding — that relates the BUDGET.
What you are looking at isn’t the budget. It’s just a continuing resolution — a temporary measure — which only takes effect if there is a government shutdown (that is, if the parties can’t come up with a budget).
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:10 pmOy-
is*its* power only .
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:11 pmYes, that’s not true. Not even close.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:13 pmRight but the current BUDGET only takes you to the end of this fiscal year-30 September.
There has to be another BUDGET after that.
In fact this current budget is from when NANCY was still in the saddle.
Get it? A new one has to be negotiated for the next fiscal year-apres this 30th of Septembre.
I’m off for awhile.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:15 pmIt seems kmart’s goal was to confuzzle an otherwise clear and straight forward issue. Barcky and OMB stated they will veto a 1 week CR funding the military, 1363, claiming it just kicks the can down the road, and is a distraction. Period. They are wailing and gnashing their teeth and rending their garments and claiming dead old people starving babies and cancerous women over about 38 billion dollars in a 3.5 trillion dollar + budget. They are fundamentally unserious, disingenuous, and dishonest.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:15 pmMad – noting that this is a result of the Dems cowardice is both racist and sexist.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:16 pmDo not forget whom Obama has on his side.
The network broadcast media, the national daily newspapers, the regional daily newspapers, the weekly newsmagazines, etc.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:17 pmJD:
Then what did the OMB mean when they wrote:
“As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.”
What were they referring to?
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:19 pmClearly, they meant that they WOULD support a CR, just not 1363.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:19 pmkman
twist and turn all you want, but you are raising objections that even that document doesn’t raise.
they didn’t say it was an unacceptable compromise. they said it was a distraction.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:20 pmAgain, you have to start English on it’s ear to gt the meaning you are claimig, sinc they claim in the first f@cling sentence to strongly oppose it, and in the last sentence, their vow to veto. So, f@ck off.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:20 pmGot some jerk chicken with my name on it. Irie, mon. Don’t let the liars get to you.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:22 pmJD:
Apparently, you can’t hear what I am claiming. I’m not claiming Obama supports 1363. I agree with you there. Obama et al don’t like it. They will veto it.
But they DO admit that they could support a “clean” continuing resolution (since 1363 clearly isn’t).
AW:
It’s a distraction from passing the budget. Because what it does is put off passing the budget, while not-so-subtly getting Democrats to commit to certain budgetary cuts.
Obama’s point was, instead of trying to negotiate what to cut from the budget if the budget doesn’t pass, why not work on — you know — the actual budget?
That’s why he called it a “distraction”. It is a distraction. It is kabuki theater.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:33 pm“I was talking about 1297 (see comment #110).”
Kman – Complete BS. You did not even know that bill existed before this thread, doubted it was clean and keep raising objections because it has not yet been passed by the House. Just another of your asspulls.
Keep spinning.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2011 @ 1:46 pmThis is pretty simple stuff. Obama submitted a morbidly obese budget for approval last year. Democrats were too cowardly to act on it in advance of the midterm elections even though they controlled both chambers of Congress. Voters, fed up with big spending, big deficits and big government, delivered a shellacking to Democrats in November, yet the Democrats still failed to act on a budget while they controlled both chambers.
Now they are attempting to blame Republicans for attempting to trim a tiny portion of fat from that morbidly obese budget, some cuts of which are to programs Democrats feel very strongly about. The only reason they find themselves in this position is because of their failure to fulfill their duty as legislators and the attempt by Republicans to follow through on the wishes of their constituents.
The current position of the Democrats, that they feel so strongly about killing babies with federal funds, an illegal use of federal funds, that they would shut down the government instead or withhold pay from our troops serving in harms way is obscene. They could always bring separate resolutions later on PP funding, but they do not want to have such debates under sunlight for obvious reasons.
The attempts by people such as Kman and happyfeet to confuse legitimate budget cut debates (e.g. we’ll cut this much and this will be part of it) with continuing resolutions is merely meant to distract from the hypocrisy and fecklessness of the Democrats. The House has already passed a budget this year. Where is the Senate’s version? More abdication of responsibility by the Democrats right there.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:04 pmThank you, Daleyrocks. You’ve boiled it down very accurately.
Sure, it’s possible to raise objections forever, and refuse to take responsibility. Obama promised the American people he would be an effective commander in chief, and he promised to cut the deficit in half (before it was ever into the trillions).
He is a miserable failure.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:09 pmKman
> Obama’s point was
was that funding our troops in the case of a shutdown is a distraction.
seriously, anything more is spin.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:19 pmThanks Dustin
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:23 pmI can’t believe Moron had the courage to show up at a meeting with live constituents.
As with his cell-mate, Jerry Connelly, his behavior is always self-serving and despicable. Alas, Northern Virginia gets the representation it deserves…
WarEagle (08c61f) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:38 pmIf I was the House of Representatives I’d pass an appropriations bill to fund the military for the year, and flatly refuse to vote a dime for any other purpose until steps are taken to start reducing the size of the federal government. And, that means getting get rid of unconstitutional socialist crap like AFDC, food stamps, social security, welfare for corporations and all the rest of the crap liberals (well mainly liberals, anyway) have been ramming down the throat of the halfwit electorate of America for, lo these many, years.
But, that’s just me.
Dave Surls (e969a9) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:38 pmAaron, it is certainly true that Obama’s release speaks of 1363 as a “distraction” rather than objecting to it because of its contents.
But is it also not factually true that it is not a “clean” CR? Does it, or does it not, include the Planned Parenthood defunding, among others? If it does, why has the Republican leadership decided to make funding for the troops for the remainder of the year contingent on Democrats agreeing to defund Planned Parenthood?
My cousin is in the Army, served several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s already been told that he’s not getting his next paycheck, nobody in the Army is, and they are all pissed off about it. My cousin is a staunch, hard-core Republican. He wants to see Planned Parenthood defunded as much as anybody. But he doesn’t want the paychecks of his comrades-in-arms currently stationed overseas to be held hostage by that issue.
So if this CR the GOP passed is not “clean,” if it addresses matters extraneous to temporarily keeping the government lights on and paying our soldiers, then it’s playing politics with our soldiers’ paychecks just as much as the Obama Administration is.
And I don’t know whether it’s a “clean” bill or not. I’m having a particularly hard time finding straight answers from ANYBODY today, rather than political spin. But if it’s not “clean,” they ought to immediately pass a clean one, even if ALL it funds is our soldiers.
PatHMV (5189f9) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:41 pmPatHMV, let me answer this:
NO, 1363 is NOT a clean bill. I looked myself and had to admit I was wrong about this. You can too, by looking at the riders attached at “division b”.
So there’s your straight answer. They had a DoD funding bill, and they attached riders to it.
Sucks.
The other bill, 1297, is “clean”. However, who the hell knows if the idiots would add riders to that if it came to a vote.
This is the truth, with no spin. I promise.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:50 pmGoing through the above comments, I have to say that Kman is wrong and those arguing with him are wrong, but Kman is more wrong those arguing with him.
Obama (through the OMB) has promised to veto HR 1363, the long form CR for the DOD. He has sort of promised to sign a completed budget, but put strings on that promise. He has said nothing directly about HR 1297, but that apparently falls into the “I’ll think about signing it” category of a CR he would sign if budget negotiations are progressing. Why the long form CR for the DOD doesn’t meet his requirements, only the Lord Obama knows.
Now, on to Delegate Norton–I think you’re doing her a disservice. It’s her job to represent the interests of the residents of her district; and those interests include being able to spend its own tax money on garden variety city services
I suspect the DC residents (of whom, please remember, there are more than a few that don’t suck at the federal teat, either as government employees, lobbyists, or welfare beneficiaries) feel they’re being used as pawns as much as the military is being used.
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:50 pmThe Republicans have control of the House, and that means they totally control the purse strings of the federal government. They can cut Obambi and the socialists off at the knees if they want to. All they need is the will and some party discipline, and then they can start doing what they’ve been promising to do for years, and haven’t really delivered on, and that’s getting rid of socialism in the federal government and returning to limited constitutioonal government.
Refusing to provide federal funds to groups like Planned Parenthood or refusing to fund Obambicare is a great place to start. They should stick to their guns, pass an appropriations bill funding the military, refuse to pass appropriations bills that fund Planned Parenthood, and tell the Dem controlled Senate and that skank in the White House to pound sand if they don’t like it.
Let the Great Black Dope veto a bill funding the military, and we’ll see what that does for his election chances in 2012. Frankly…I don’t think he has the balls to veto an appropriation bill funding the military.
Dave Surls (e969a9) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:52 pmKman is more wrong those arguing with him.
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:52 pmshould be
Kman is more wrong than those arguing with him.
kishnevi, part of the reason I was in error on one point is that the damn bill, 1363, is long, and the table of contents makes it look like absolutely nothing but defense funding.
That alone is very frustrating. Sure, I want to win arguments, but more importantly, I need to know what the hell is going on. I understand the temptation to add riders to bills, but I actually think happyfeet has some point that adding this stuff showed a problem with priorities.
It’s a lie to say this is all hinging on planned parenthood. That’s theater. But still, it seems like there are only two logical moved the GOP can make: either they pass 1297, or they make a deal with the democrats on the entire budget, on Obama’s terms.
I think whether or not they want to pass whatever kind of budget, they should pass 1297 asap to make sure the troops’ salaries weren’t seen as a valid bargaining chip.
Can anyone give me a reason why they shouldn’t pass 1297? Sure, I like 1363 more, but it’s not working out.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 2:57 pmAllow me to illustrate the House GOP’s planning process.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 3:00 pmIf you follow the leftist narrative rules, kmart wants to murder babies more than funding troops in battle.
JD (3ee1ee) — 4/8/2011 @ 3:20 pm“Ms. Norton you do know your constituents have to pay that, too, right?”
Somehow, me thinks her
Torquemada (fccc6f) — 4/8/2011 @ 3:25 pmparasitesconstituents are massive consumers of Federal handouts than otherwise. Why would herparasitesconstituents be at all concerned over who pays so long as it is not them.Kman is a jackwagon.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/8/2011 @ 3:28 pm“I need to know what the hell is going on.”
Sounds like Obambi is saying that our armed forces will just have to work for free, fighting wars on behalf of foreign nations, while he gets to take all expenses paid vacations to Rio.
It’s the usual crap one sees Dems doing…stealing and enslaving people. Stuff like that.
It’s traditional.
Dave Surls (e969a9) — 4/8/2011 @ 3:40 pmDustin, thanks. I looked at the CR earlier myself, but was too busy at work to take the time to dig through it looking for the Planned Parenthood or other language. I agree with your “sucks” response.
And lol at your video link. I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised at how well the GOP leadership has been handling this battle so far. But I think we’ve reached the point where it’s time to recognize political realities, take what we can get, and start preparing for the next battle. Contra Dave Surls’ suggestion, the public in general will not look kindly on Republicans if their primary negotiating tactic is to threaten to take their ball and go home. Like it or not, the reality is we have a divided government, and that means we’ll have to acquiesce to some things we don’t like, in some circumstances.
I’ll support the GOP going to the mat on next year’s budget. Heck, I might even support them going to the mat on budget issues right now, as long as they make sure we keep paying our soldiers while they’re at war. But I’m not going to support holding troop pay hostage for ANY issue.
PatHMV (299e25) — 4/8/2011 @ 4:25 pmdance your cares away worry’s for another day let the music play
down at Fraggle Rock!!!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/8/2011 @ 4:32 pmThe sun will come up tomorrow, Mr. Feets, you can bet your bottom dollar.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2011 @ 4:45 pmPathmv, Dick Morris says the GOP must cut a lot, or they lose the Tea Party. and he’s wrong approximately 100% of the time.
Frankly, I think the troops just need to get paid too, but also we need to be wary of showing the dems what a great tool this is. I’m sure they would find a way to threaten troop pay in the future, when it’s time to cut twelve bucks from the 75 quadrillion dollar omnibus.
Will the Republicans accept that we have a divided government as an excuse for a failure to cut $100 billion, as promised? I think they might, but I also think Obama is trying very hard to keep the GOP from keeping their promise. It’s important to show America that both parties can’t cut the deficit. Obama is literally the opposite of Hope and Change.
Anyhow, I continue to wonder why the hell HR 1297 is in the Committee on Transportation’s back bench, instead of already voted upon.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 4:47 pmDustin, you can always remove the troops from being a political tool by passing a clean bill for funding that and only that. If the President won’t sign that, then he’s the one playing politics with their pay.
The foolish political thing for the GOP here, I think, was the combination of providing a separate bill for the troops AND including non-troop related items in it. If they hadn’t passed a special CR just for the troops, and said “we need to resolve all this at once,” then that plays differently in Peoria than pretending you’re passing a bill just for the troops, but in reality including a lot of other non-related provisions in it.
Like I said, pass a clean troop bill, and I’m all for letting the rest of government shut down. I won’t get my tax refund right away, but that’s ok. It sucks for the innocent federal employees who will get screwed by it, but that’s a necessary but unfortunate part of this sort of thing. But the troops overseas have more than enough to worry about without having to call home to their wives and husbands to help them figure out how to get the mortgage paid and buy groceries this month when the paycheck doesn’t get direct-deposited next week.
PatHMV (299e25) — 4/8/2011 @ 4:57 pmPat, you’re 100% right. They need to pass a HR 1297 with no additional BS whatsoever. And then we just have to hope the democrats do too.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/8/2011 @ 5:07 pmDustin, I can think of only two reasons why HR 1297 is on the back burner:
1) the House leadership thinks that a budget deal is fairly close, and therefore HR 1297 won’t be needed, or at worse the funding gap will be only for a few days (over the weekend, perhaps).
2) the House leadership thinks that most people will not do the digging through HR 1363 and find all the non-military stuff like you did; and that therefore they can claim with impunity to have passed a bill that funds paying the troops which Obama won’t sign.
I have no idea which is more likely to be true, although I hope it’s the first. Can you think of any other reason?
Dick Morris says the GOP must cut a lot, or they lose the Tea Party. and he’s wrong approximately 100% of the time
I think Dick Morris holds the world speed record for transforming himself from Democratic operative to Republican pundit. And yes, if Dick Morris predicts the sun will rise in the east, I immediately begin to look for the sun rising in the west, north or south.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 4/8/2011 @ 5:30 pm________________________________________
It’s alarming that a bill that funds our troops and could likely pass both the House and the Senate has been termed as a “distraction” by the White House
Just another example of how the guy in the White House really does fit the profile of someone who is intrinsically ultra-liberal. If Obama could get away with it, he’d truly love to turn the US into a banana republic. He’d love to make America a version of Honduras, but without a Constitution that prevented the takeover of that nation’s government by an extreme leftist like ex-president Manuel Zelaya.
Mark (411533) — 4/8/2011 @ 6:22 pmSo, basically this argument is about a house of congress trying to do what their constituents elected them to do versus the full weight of the special-insterest establishment beholden to powerful lobbies.
The only problem seems to be that the speaking-truth-to-power bunch doesn’t understand truth or power.
It is an upside-down world.
Ag80 (98fa24) — 4/8/2011 @ 6:26 pmMichelle Bachmann is saying it’s not worth the fuss
kishnevi (07cf78) — 4/8/2011 @ 6:52 pmIt is an upside-down world.
Down at Fraggle Rock!!
happyfeet (bf1611) — 4/8/2011 @ 7:15 pm