Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

The prospect of a government shutdown appeared more possible Saturday after the House passed a budget measure in the pre-dawn hours that cuts $61 billion - and was immediately rejected by Senate Democrats and President Obama.

The House plan, which was approved on a party-line vote at 4:40 a.m. after five days of debate, eliminates dozens of programs and offices while slashing agency budgets by as much as 40 percent. Federal funding for AmeriCorps and PBS would cease. Hundreds of millions would be cut from border security, and tens of millions would be withheld from funding for the District of Columbia.

The debate over the size and scope of the government now moves to the Senate, where leaders have already said that the House plan cuts way too deep and that they are planning a far more modest proposal. But with the Senate out of session all next week, senators have left themselves just a few days to take up a bill before March 4, when the stop-gap measure that is currently funding the government expires.

Given the tight time frame, it's unlikely the two chambers can agree on a compromise. If they don't, the government will either shut down or congressional leaders will have to agree on another temporary measure, perhaps for as little as a couple of weeks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904121.html
 

The last time this happened was disastrous - not only for the people who were directly or indirectly affected by it - but for the Republicans.

Why would the let this happen again and destroy recent "successes"?

The "shutdown" would only happen if either the Senate couldn't pass the budget when they get it it (or it gets tangled up in conference) or the bill hit the President's desk and he vetoed it.  Either way it's on the Dems if that happens. The House has already passed the budget.

former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee thinks that the government will eventually have to shut down but it won’t be that bad this time around.

“It’s a very different environment this time, he told CBS Tuesday. “I think first of all, a lot of the things that were shut down were automated –like Social Security checks and Veterans checks — so it’s not going to be as draconian, if it does happen.”

“I think it could happen. And maybe it has to,” he explained. “Because sometime, either now or later, the government’s going to shut down, either from bankruptcy in the future, or from a targeted effect to try to get someone’s attention that we’re overspending and not managing at all.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/huckabee-government-shutdown-wouldnt-be-that-bad/

Cantor's complaint is that Reid's proposal wouldn't result in immediate cuts. True, but in freezing spending, it does represent a cut from President Obama's budget request, which is the same baseline Republicans use when they claim $100 billion in cuts. But the more important point is that the whole idea of Reid's proposal is to give the House and Senate time to negotiate a final spending bill without shutting down the government.

In rejecting Reid's offer, Cantor is saying Republicans won't sit down at the table with Democrats unless Democrats cave before negotiations begin. That's an absurd position to take. And if Republicans don't show some flexibility—and show it fast—come March 4 they will be responsible for shutting down the federal government.

Reid comes up with a compromise bill to keep the government running for 30 days. A bill that actually follows the guidelines of the GOP (spending less than Obama's budget).

What does the GOP say? Nope!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/22/948442/-House-GOP-refuses-Reid-proposal-to-keep-government-open-during-negotiations

Same-ol', Same-ol' "Just pass it" bullshit.
.

I would have said no too.  It's just a continuing resolution with no cuts.  It's a stall  tactic.  If the dems don't want to vote for it in the senate, let them take a road trip.  It seems to be all the rage when you can't vote present!

Which is it? A "continuing resolution" or a "stall tactic". My understanding is these "continuing resolutions" have been par for the course in decades of negotiation. Except, of course, 1995. And we all know what a debacle that was for the Republicans.

Was it a "stall tactic" in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005? Or was it a "continuing resolution"?

Which is it? A "continuing resolution" or a "stall tactic". My understanding is these "continuing resolutions" have been par for the course in decades of negotiation. Except, of course, 1995. And we all know what a debacle that was for the Republicans.

Was it a "stall tactic" in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005? Or was it a "continuing resolution"?

i thought this was gonna be about the show Two and a Half Men....


boy was i wrong...


carry on...

The threat of a government shutdown receded Friday, as Senate Democrats tentatively embraced a Republican plan to immediately cut $4 billion in federal spending by targeting programs that President Obama has already marked for elimination.

The Republicans capitulate...I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022506943.html
 

The Republicans capitulate?  And then you quote this:  The threat of a government shutdown receded Friday, as Senate Democrats tentatively embraced a Republican plan to immediately cut $4 billion in federal spending by targeting programs that President Obama has already marked for elimination.



So the Republicans had already said they wouldn't accept a continuing resolution that didn't have cuts, Reid said a continuing resolution with no cuts only, and the "compromise" is a brief continuing resolution... with cuts.

Now to me, this looks like a Republican win and the dems capitulated.  So are you just spinning like crazy or have you really twisted this around in your head as a Republican defeat?  I honestly can't tell.

a Republican plan to immediately cut $4 billion in federal spending by targeting programs that President Obama has already marked for elimination

I knew you'd like that! This is the funny part:

Harry Reid: “The plan Republicans are floating today sounds like a modified version of what Democrats were talking about. We’re glad they think it’s a good idea, but we should keep our focus on what we need to do to cut spending and keep our economy growing in the long term,”

Charles Schumer: "They feared a government shutdown, and so they are adopting some of our suggestions on what to cut."

The programs cut included some Obama didn't want or see necessary any more, duplications, and so on....

Don't you think any cuts Obama suggested they were going to take anyway?  Of course, if that is enough for you determine that this was a Republican defeat, I'm OK with that.  The Republicans get to cut, and the Democrats get to claim victory without getting anything they want.

I'm more than willing to give Republicans credit for shifting their demands and adopting Dem's ideas about cuts. That's called bipartisanship.

According to Tim Pawlenty, though, the process ends March 18th. He and the future president, Newt, believe a shutdown is necessary.

deja vu!

The partisan differences are striking. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats prefer avoiding a shutdown by going with current spending levels. But 80% of Republicans -- and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party -- think a shutdown is a better option until the two sides can agree on spending cuts.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/58_favor_government_shutdown_until_spending_cuts_are_agreed_upon
 

Potentially most helpful to Democrats is the finding that, by 60% to 32%, more Americans want legislators who share their views on the budget to agree on a compromise budget rather than hold out for a budget they mostly agree with, which would trigger a government shutdown after March 4.

Republicans may have hoped that the potential of a government shutdown would pressure Democrats to accept deeper spending cuts than they have to date. However, the finding that most Americans are averse to a shutdown could ultimately strengthen Democrats' bargaining power

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146315/Neither-Party-Edge-Federal-Budget-Dealings.aspx

Newt has them believing

and 80% of R want a shut down..
granted, that is a GOP-slanted Rasmussen poll..

Do We Believe this Rasmussen Poll on a Government Shutdown?Posted Monday, February 28, 2011 11:12 AM | By David Weigel

I like that Rasmussen Reports polls on breaking news questions. I don't like it when the phrasing of the poll questions looks like it gooses the results. But just as he did last week, Scott Rasmussen is out with a poll on a political impasse that 1) ends up looking good for Republicans and 2) gets there by framing the question in a way that benefits Republicans.

The headline from the poll:

58% Favor Government Shutdown Until Spending Cuts Are Agreed Upon

That's a clear victory for the GOP, clearer than the 48-38 margin in support of Scott Walker's budget stance that Rasmussen found last week. But how does he get there? This is the fifth of five questions.

1* How closely have you followed recent news reports about the federal budget debate in Congress?

2* Will the spending cuts proposed by Congressional Republicans significantly reduce federal spending and deficits or will they have little impact on overall levels of spending and deficits?

3* Congress never passed a budget for 2011, but authorized spending for a few months. That authorization will expire soon and Congress must act quickly or some federal government services could be shut down. As Congress authorizes spending for the rest of 2011, should they authorize spending at the same levels as last year, authorize less spending than last year, or authorize more spending than last year?

4* If Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a budget agreement soon, there will be a partial shutdown of the federal government. Payments for things like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits would continue, but some federal government services could be shut down until an agreement is reached. Would a partial shutdown of the federal government be good for the economy, bad for the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

5* Would you rather have Congress avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending at the same levels as last year or would you rather have a partial government shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut? 

So before someone is asked whether he supports a shutdown, he is told that the shutdown will not affect Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits; he is not told what other services "could be" shut down. He's told that there are three options -- authorize spending at the same levels as last year, authorize less spending than last year, or authorize more spending than last year, but then he's told that the shutdown will be avoided "by authorizing spending at the same levels as last year."

But no one is proposing* spending at the same levels as last year. The CR we're talking about is one that Republicans in the House supported first and the Democratic Senate is grudgingly accepting. I'm not sure how useful this poll is for gauging possible support for a shutdown.

I'm more than willing to give Republicans credit for shifting their demands and adopting Dem's ideas about cuts. That's called bipartisanship.

According to Tim Pawlenty, though, the process ends March 18th. He and the future president, Newt, believe a shutdown is necessary.

deja vu!