Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

President Obama Speaks on the Economic Impact of the Government Shutdown

Published on Oct 3, 2013 by The White House

Today, in Rockville, Maryland, President Obama visited M. Luis Construction. M. Luis Construction is a local construction company that has grown in recent years thanks to increased access to capital through the President's Small Business Jobs Act and other SBA programs. While here, the President highlighted the impacts that Congress's inability to act on a shutdown and default would have on our economy and our nation's small businesses.

*

Remarks by the President on the Government Shutdown

M. Luis Construction Company, Rockville, Maryland
October 03, 2013
10:49 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) Good to see all of you. Please, please have a seat. Well, hello, Rockville!

Let me start by recognizing three public servants who fight hard every day for Maryland families and businesses. First of all, Congressman Chris Van Hollen is here. (Applause.) Yay, Chris! Congressman John Delaney is here. (Applause.) And we have the acting head of the Small Business Administration -- Jeanne Hulit is here. (Applause.)

And I also want to give a big thanks to your bosses, Cidalia and Natalia, for being such gracious hosts. I had a chance to meet them at the White House. (Applause.) Thank you. Now I know where they got their good looks from, because I had a chance to meet mom and dad, and their beautiful families. So I’m so glad to be here. And I had a chance to learn a little bit about their story. So when their parents brought them from Portugal to America almost 40 years ago, no one in the family spoke a word of English. But that didn’t stop their father, Manuel, and their mother, Albertina, from having a big dream -- believing that if they worked hard, they could get ahead, and that even though they’d never had any schooling, maybe their daughters could go to college; maybe in America you could make it if you tried. That’s what they believed.

So they started their own construction company with a pickup truck and a wheelbarrow. And when Cidalia and Natalia turned 14, they began to help -- cleaning tools, translating documents. And they became the first in their family to go to college. After graduation, they started their own business, and later they bought the family business from their parents. So today, M. Luis Construction is a $60 million company with about 250 employees. (Applause.) And I understand you’re opening your fourth office at the end of this month. So this story is what America is all about. You start off -- maybe you don’t have a lot -- but you’re willing to work hard, you put in the time, opportunities out there, and you’re able to pass on an even better life to your family, your children, your grandchildren.

And it’s good news that after how hard the construction industry got hit during the recession, things are starting to get a little better. Remember, it was just five years ago that our economy was in free fall. Businesses were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs every single month, and the recession ultimately cost millions of Americans their jobs, their homes, their savings -- everything they had worked hard to build.

Today, over the last three and a half years, our businesses have added 7.5 million new jobs. (Applause.) Our deficits are falling. Our housing market is healing, which means construction is improving; manufacturing is growing; the auto industry is back. America is on pace to become the number one energy producer in the world this year. (Applause.) More small businesses have gotten loans so they can grow and they can hire -- just like M. Luis did with the help of the Small Business Jobs Act that I signed three years ago. So that’s part of what allowed this company to grow. (Applause.)

So we still have a long way to go. We've still got a lot of work to do, especially to rebuild the middle class. But we're making steady progress. And the reason I'm here is, we can't afford to threaten that progress right now. Right now, hundreds of thousands of Americans, hardworking Americans, suddenly aren’t receiving their paycheck. Right now, they're worrying about missing the rent, or their mortgage, or even making ends meet. We can all relate to that. Imagine if suddenly you weren't sure whether you were going to get your next paycheck, with all the bills that might be mounting up. Well, that’s what's happening right now to hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country.

Companies like this one worried that their businesses are going to be disrupted, because obviously, particularly in an area like Maryland, Virginia, where there are a lot of federal workers, you don’t know how that’s going to impact the economy. Veterans, seniors, women -- they're all worrying that the services they depend on will be disrupted too.

And the worst part is, this time it’s not because of a once-in-a-lifetime recession. This isn't happening because of some financial crisis. It's happening because of a reckless Republican shutdown in Washington.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: That’s right! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Now, we’ve all seen the offices locked down, the monuments closed. We’ve heard about services denied, we've heard about benefits that are delayed. But the impacts of a shutdown go way beyond those things that you're seeing on television. Those hundreds of thousands of Americans -- a lot of whom live around here -- don’t know when they're going to get their next paycheck, and that means stores and restaurants around here don’t know if they'll have as many customers.

Across the country you've got farmers in rural areas and small business owners who deserve a loan, but they're being left in the lurch right now. They might have an application pending as we speak, but there's nobody in the office to process the loan. The SBA gives a billion dollars of loans a month to small businesses -- a billion dollars a month goes to small businesses all across the country. Right now those can't be processed because there's nobody there to process them.

Veterans who deserve our support are getting less help. Little kids who deserve a Head Start have been sent home from the safe places where they learn and grow every single day. And of course, their families then have to scramble to figure out what to do. And the longer this goes on, the worse it will be. And it makes no sense.

The American people elected their representatives to make their lives easier, not harder. And there is one way out of this reckless and damaging Republican shutdown: Congress has to pass a budget that funds our government with no partisan strings attached. (Applause.)

Now, I want everybody to understand what's happened, because sometimes when this gets reported on everybody kind of thinks, well, you know, both sides are just squabbling; Democrats and Republicans, they're always arguing, so neither side is behaving properly. I want everybody to understand what's happened here. The Republicans passed a temporary budget for two months at a funding level that we, as Democrats, actually think is way too low because we’re not providing help for more small businesses, doing more for early childhood education, doing more to rebuild our infrastructure. But we said, okay, while we’re still trying to figure out this budget, we’re prepared to go ahead and take the Republican budget levels that they proposed.

So the Senate passed that with no strings attached -- not because it had everything the Democrats wanted. In fact, it had very little that the Democrats wanted. But we said, let’s go ahead and just make sure that other people aren’t hurt while negotiations are still taking place.

So that’s already passed the Senate. And we know there are enough Republicans and Democrats to vote in the House of Representatives for the same thing. So I want everybody to understand this: There are enough Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives today that, if the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, simply let the bill get on the floor for an up-or-down vote, every congressman could vote their conscience -- the shutdown would end today.

The only thing that is keeping the government shut down; the only thing preventing people from going back to work and basic research starting back up, and farmers and small business owners getting their loan -- the only thing that’s preventing all that from happening, right now, today, in the next five minutes, is that Speaker John Boehner won’t even let the bill get a yes-or-no vote, because he doesn’t want to anger the extremists in his party. That’s all. That’s what this whole thing is about.

We’ve heard a lot from congressional Republicans in the past couple of days saying they don’t want this shutdown. Well, there’s a simple way to prove it. Send the bill to the floor, let everybody vote -- it will pass. Send me the bill; I will sign it. The shutdown will be over and we can get back to the business of governing and helping the American people. (Applause.)

It could happen in the next half hour. National parks, monuments, offices would all reopen immediately. Benefits and services would resume again. Hundreds of thousands of dedicated public servants who are worrying about whether they’re going to be able to pay the mortgage or pay the car note, they’d start going back to work right away. So my simple message today is: Call a vote. Call a vote.

AUDIENCE: Call a vote! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Put it on the floor and let every individual member of Congress make up their own minds. And they can show the American people, are you for a shutdown or not? If you’re not for a shutdown, you’ll vote for the bill; if you’re for a shutdown, you won’t vote for a bill. We don’t have to twist anybody’s arms. But that way, the American people will be clear about who is responsible for the shutdown. Or, alternatively, more hopefully, they’d be clear that this is something that doesn’t make sense and we should go ahead and make sure that we’re looking out for the American people. It should be that simple.

But as I said, the problem we’ve got is that there’s one faction of one party, in one half of one branch of government that so far has refused to allow that yes-or-no vote unless they get some massive partisan concessions in exchange for doing what they’re supposed to be doing anyway, in exchange for doing what everybody else agrees is necessary. And they won’t agree to end the shutdown until they get their way. And you may think I’m exaggerating, but just the other day, one tea party Republican called the idea of a shutdown “wonderful.” Another said that a shutdown is “exactly what we wanted.” Well, they got exactly what they wanted. Now they’re trying to figure out how to get out of it.

Just yesterday, one House Republican said -- I'm quoting here, because I want to make sure people understand I didn't make this up. One House Republican said, “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” That was a quote. "We're not going to be disrespected. We have got to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." Think about that.

You have already gotten the opportunity to serve the American people. There is no higher honor than that. (Applause.) You've already gotten the opportunity to help businesses like this one, workers like these. So the American people aren't in the mood to give you a goodie bag to go with it. What you get is our intelligence professionals being back on the job. What you get is our medical researchers back on the job. (Applause.) What you get are little kids back into Head Start. (Applause.) What you get are our national parks and monuments open again. What you get is the economy not stalling, but continuing to grow. (Applause.) What you get are workers continuing to be hired. That's what you get. That's what you should be asking for. Take a vote, stop this farce, and end this shutdown right now. (Applause.)

If you're being disrespected, it's because of that attitude you got that you deserve to get something for doing your job. Everybody here just does their job, right? If you're working here and in the middle of the day you just stopped and said, you know what, I want to get something, but I don't know exactly what I'm going to get. (Laughter.) But I'm just going to stop working until I get something. I'm going to shut down the whole plant until I get something.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You'd get fired.

THE PRESIDENT: You'd get fired. (Applause.) Right? Because the deal is you've already gotten hired. You've got a job. You're getting a paycheck. And so you also are getting the pride of doing a good job and contributing to a business and looking out for your fellow workers. That's what you're getting. Well, it shouldn't be any different for a member of Congress.

Now, unlike past shutdowns -- I want to make sure everybody understands this because, again, sometimes the tendency is to say, well, both sides are at fault. This one has nothing to do with deficits or spending or budgets. Our deficits are falling at the fastest pace in 60 years. We’ve cut the deficits in half since I took office. (Applause.) And some of the things that the Republicans are asking for right now would actually add to our deficits, seriously.

So this is not about spending. And this isn't about fiscal responsibility. This whole thing is about one thing: the Republican obsession with dismantling the Affordable Care Act and denying affordable health insurance to millions of Americans. (Applause.) That's all this has become about. That seems to be the only thing that unites the Republican Party these days.

Through this whole fight, they’ve said the American people don’t want Obamacare, so we should shut down the government to repeal it or delay it. But here's the problem: The government is now shut down, but the Affordable Care Act is still open for business. (Applause.) So they're not even accomplishing what they say they want to accomplish. And, by the way, in the first two days since the new marketplaces -- basically big group plans that we've set up -- the first two days that they opened, websites where you can compare and purchase new affordable insurance plans and maybe get tax credits to reduce your costs, millions of Americans have made it clear they do want health insurance. (Applause.)

More than 6 million people visited the website HealthCare.gov the day it opened. Nearly 200,000 people picked up the phone and called the call center. In Kentucky alone -- this is a state where -- I didn’t win Kentucky. (Laughter.) So I know they weren't doing it for me. In Kentucky, nearly 11,000 people applied for new insurance plans in the first two days -- just in one state, Kentucky. And many Americans are finding out when they go on the website that they'll save a lot of money or get health insurance for the first time.

So I would think that if, in fact, this was going to be such a disaster that the Republicans say it's going to be, that it was going to be so unpopular, they wouldn’t have to shut down the government. They could wait, nobody would show any interest, there would be, like, two people on the website -- (laughter) -- and everybody would then vote for candidates who want to repeal it.

It's not as if Republicans haven't had a chance to debate the health care law. It passed the House of Representatives. It passed the Senate. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional -- you remember all this. Last November, voters rejected the presidential candidate that ran on a platform to repeal it. (Applause.) So the Affordable Care Act has gone through every single democratic process, all three branches of government. It's the law of the land. It's here to stay.

I've said to Republicans, if there are specific things you think can improve the law to make it even better for people as opposed to just gutting it and leaving 25 million people without health insurance, I'm happy to talk to you about that. But a Republican shutdown won't change the fact that millions of people need health insurance, and that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented. The shutdown does not change that. All the shutdown is doing is making it harder for ordinary Americans to get by, and harder for businesses to create jobs at a time when our economy is just starting to gain traction again.

You've heard Republicans say that Obamacare will hurt the economy, but the economy has been growing and creating jobs. The single-greatest threat to our economy and to our businesses like this one is not the Affordable Care Act, it's the unwillingness of Republicans in Congress to stop refighting a settled election, or making the demands that have nothing to do with the budget. They need to move on to the actual business of governing. That’s what will help the economy. That's what will grow the economy. That’s what will put people back to work. (Applause.)

And more than that, House Republicans need to stop careening from one crisis to another in everything they do. Have you noticed that? Since they've taken over the House of Representatives, we have one of these crises every three months. Have you noticed? And you keep on thinking, all right, well, this is going to be the last one; they're not going to do this again. And then they do it again.

I know you're tired of it. I’m tired of it. It doesn’t mean that they're wrong on every single issue. I've said I'm happy to negotiate with you on anything. I don’t think any one party has a monopoly on wisdom. But you don’t negotiate by putting a gun to the other person's head -- or, worse yet, by putting a gun to the American people's head by threatening a shutdown.

And, by the way, even after Congress reopens your government, it's going to have to turn around very quickly and do something else -- and that's pay America's bills. I want to spend a little time on this. It's something called raising the debt ceiling. And it's got a lousy name, so a lot of people end up thinking, I don’t know, I don't think we should raise our debt ceiling, because it sounds like we're raising our debt. But that's not what this is about.

It doesn't cost taxpayers a single dime. It doesn't grow our deficits by a single dime. It doesn't allow anybody to spend any new money whatsoever. So it's not something that raises our debt. What it does is allow the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. government to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. I want you to think about this.

If you go to a restaurant, you order a meal, you eat it. Maybe you have some wine. Maybe you have two glasses of wine -- great meal. And then you look at the tab -- it's pretty expensive -- and you decide I'm not going to pay the bill. But you're not saving money. You're not being frugal. You're just a deadbeat, right? (Laughter.) If you buy a house and you decide, this month I'd rather go on vacation somewhere so I'm not going to pay my mortgage, you didn't just save yourself some money. You're just going to get foreclosed on.

So you don't save money by not paying your bills. You don't reduce your debt by not paying your bills. All you're doing is making yourself unreliable and hurting your credit rating. And you'll start getting those phone calls and those notices in the mail. And the next time you try to borrow, somebody is going to say, uh-uh, because you don't pay your bills, you're a deadbeat. Well, the same is true for countries.

The only thing that the debt ceiling does is to let the U.S. Treasury pay for what Congress has already bought. That's why it's something that has been routine. Traditionally, it's not a big deal. Congress has raised it 45 times since Ronald Reagan took office. This is just kind of a routine part of keeping the government running. The last time the House Republicans flirted with not raising the debt ceiling, back in 2011 -- some of you remember this -- our economy took a bad hit. Our country's credit rating was downgraded for the first time, just like you'd be downgraded if you didn't pay your mortgage.

This time, they are threatening to actually force the United States to default on its obligations for the very first time in history. Now, you'll hear John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and these other Republicans say, we don't want to default. But everybody knows -- it's written about in all the papers -- that their basic theory is, okay, if the shutdown doesn't work, then we are going to try to get some extra concessions out of the President. We'll put like a long laundry list, all the things that we want that we can't get passed on our own. And if we don't get it, we'll tell them we don't -- we won't vote to pay the country's bills. We'll let the country default.

I'm not just making this up. I mean, it's common knowledge. Every reporter here knows it. And I want you to understand the consequences of this. As reckless as a government shutdown is, as many people as are being hurt by a government shutdown, an economic shutdown that results from default would be dramatically worse. In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, they don't go out on time.

In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't. In a government shutdown, millions of Americans -- not just federal workers -- everybody faces real economic hardship. In an economic shutdown, falling pensions and home values and rising interest rates on things like mortgages and student loans -- all those things risk putting us back into a bad recession, which will affect this company and those workers and all of you. That's not my analysis. That's -- every economist out there is saying the same thing. We've never done it before.

And the United States is the center of the world economy. So if we screw up, everybody gets screwed up. The whole world will have problems, which is why generally nobody has ever thought to actually threaten not to pay our bills. It would be the height of irresponsibility. And that's why I've said this before -- I'm going to repeat it: There will be no negotiations over this. (Applause.) The American people are not pawns in some political game. You don't get to demand some ransom in exchange for keeping the government running. You don't get to demand ransom in exchange for keeping the economy running. You don't get to demand ransom for doing your most basic job.

And the sooner that the Republicans in Congress heed the warnings not just of me or Democrats like Chris and John, but heed the warnings of the Chamber of Commerce, and CEOs, and economists, and a whole lot of Republicans outside of Congress -- they're all saying, do not do this. They're all saying to Congress, do your job; and the sooner you do your job, the less damage you'll do to our economy and to businesses like this one.

So pass a budget, end the government shutdown. Pay our bills. Prevent an economic shutdown. Just vote and end this shutdown. And you should do it today so we can get back to growing this economy, creating jobs and strengthening our middle class. (Applause.)

Let me close just by sharing a story I heard as I was getting ready to come here today. Many of you already know it. Two years ago, a mulch factory next to M. Luis's main equipment storage facility caught fire, and most of the company's equipment was destroyed, causing millions of dollars in damage. But even while the fire was still burning, dozens of employees rushed over to the facility and tried to save as much as they could -- some of you were probably there. And when they finished cutting fire lines and spraying down the perimeter of their own property, they went over to help their neighbors.

And afterwards, even though all the employees here at M. Luis are on salary, even though the company had just taken a big financial hit, Cidalia and Natalia paid everyone overtime, and along with each check they included a personalized note saying just how much they had appreciated the efforts of the workers. And Cidalia said, everybody says the biggest asset to a business is employees. Some people mean it, some people don’t -- we actually do.

So this company right here is full of folks who do right by each other. They don’t try to see if they can work every angle. They don’t lie about each other. They don’t try to undermine each other. They understand they're supposed to be on the same team. You pitch in, you look out for one another. When somebody gets knocked down, you help them back up. You don’t ask what can you get out of this, because you know that success doesn’t depend on one of you, it depends on all of you working together.

Well, America is no different. I see that same spirit in so many cities and towns that I visit all across the country. It is alive and well all across the country. It's alive and well in this community where restaurants and businesses are rallying around their regulars, and they're looking out for all the dedicated public servants who have been furloughed. You've been reading stories about restaurants who are saying, you know what, while you're on furlough, come on, we'll give you a burger, we'll give you a meal, we'll help you out.

That’s the American ideal. It says, we're working together, looking out for one another, meeting our responsibilities, doing our jobs, thinking about future generations. And that’s why I believe, ultimately, reason and common sense will prevail. That spirit at some point will infiltrate Washington as well. Because I think the American people are so good and so decent, they're going to get better behavior from their government than this. And we'll once again make sure this is a country where you can make it if you try.

So thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
11:21 A.M. EDT

*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_yhwXFfvDk [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/03/president-obama-just-vote-and-end-shutdown ]; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/03/remarks-president-government-shutdown


--


Statement by the Press Secretary on Cancellation of the President’s Trip to Asia

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
October 03, 2013

Due to the government shut-down, President Obama’s travel to Indonesia and Brunei has been cancelled. The President made this decision based on the difficulty in moving forward with foreign travel in the face of a shutdown, and his determination to continue pressing his case that Republicans should immediately allow a vote to reopen the government. Secretary Kerry will lead delegations to both countries in place of the President.

The cancellation of this trip is another consequence of the House Republicans forcing a shutdown of the government. This completely avoidable shutdown is setting back our ability to create jobs through promotion of U.S. exports and advance U.S. leadership and interests in the largest emerging region in the world. The President looks forward to continuing his work with our allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific and to returning to the region at a later date.

Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries.
Information about government operating status and resumption of normal operations is available at USA.GOV [ http://www.usa.gov/ ].

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/03/statement-press-secretary-cancellation-president-s-trip-asia


--


Some GOP colleagues angry with Ted Cruz


A number of GOP senators blame the Texas freshman for contributing to the mess.
AP Photo

By MANU RAJU | 10/2/13 7:31 PM EDT Updated: 10/3/13 2:45 PM EDT

Ted Cruz faced a barrage of hostile questions Wednesday from angry GOP senators, who lashed the Texas tea party freshman for helping prompt a government shutdown crisis without a strategy to end it.

At a closed-door lunch meeting in the Senate’s Mansfield Room, Republican after Republican pressed Cruz to explain how he would propose to end the bitter budget impasse with Democrats, according to senators who attended the meeting. A defensive Cruz had no clear plan to force an end to the shutdown — or explain how he would defund Obamacare, as he has demanded all along, sources said.

Things got particularly heated when Cruz was asked point-blank if he would renounce attacks waged on GOP senators by the Senate Conservatives Fund, an outside group that has aligned itself closely with the Texas senator.

Cruz’s response: “I will not,” according to an attendee.

The closed-door Wednesday meetings hosted by the Senate’s conservative Steering Committee are supposed to be private, so senators interviewed for this article asked not to be named.

“It seems that there is nothing the media likes to cover more than disagreements among Republicans, and apparently some senators are content to fuel those stories with anonymous quotes,” Cruz told POLITICO. “Regardless, my focus — and, I would hope, the focus of the rest of the conference — is on stopping Harry Reid’s shutdown, ensuring that vital government priorities are funded, and preventing the enormous harms that Obamacare is inflicting on millions of Americans.”

But as the government shutdown heads into day three, a number of Republican senators privately blame the Texas freshman for contributing to the mess their party finds itself in. And now that they’re in it, they say it’s up to Cruz to help find a solution.

“It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn’t have a strategy – he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was,” said one senator who attended the meeting. “I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch.”

Over the August recess, Cruz made the rounds with conservative media and held rallies to call on his GOP colleagues to oppose any bill to keep the government running that would also continue funding Obamacare. As he won support on the right and among several dozen House conservatives, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) agreed to include the Obamacare defunding provision in a bill to keep the government running past Tuesday.

Cruz’s tactics culminated in a controversial 21-hour floor speech, where he derided many of his colleagues for lacking the courage to fight Obamacare. But because of complicated Senate procedures, he was calling on his 45 other GOP colleagues to filibuster the same House bill he endorsed — in order to prevent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from later stripping out that language

Including Cruz, just 19 Republicans backed his filibuster attempt, and Reid later killed the Obamacare language with just Democratic votes.

At the Wednesday lunch, Cruz was asked what he would have done had GOP senators united to filibuster the House bill.

“He kept trying to change the subject because he never could answer the question,” the senator said. “It’s pretty evident it’s never been about a strategy – it’s been about him. That’s unfortunate. I think he’s done our country a major disservice. I think he’s done Republicans a major disservice.”

In the run-up to the Tuesday deadline to fund the government, Cruz continued to press the anti-Obamcare fight, lobbying House conservatives to stiffen Boehner’s spine despite the prospects of a government shutdown. The speaker responded with bill after bill taking aim at pieces of the health care law. But Senate Democrats rejected each one up until the final hours of Monday night, prompting the first government shutdown since 1996.

Many Senate Republicans publicly and privately scoffed at the Cruz tactics, arguing that he was making a false and politically damaging promise that he could use the funding bill to gut Obamacare — since the law moved forward anyway on Tuesday despite the government shutdown. They argued President Barack Obama would never agree to gut his signature law. And they took great exception by Cruz and his allies in outside groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund to portray them as weak on Obamcare even though the party has furiously battled the law since the beginning of the president’s term in office.

“The entire effort has been totally disingenuous,” the senator said.

A spokesman for SCF rejected the criticism.

“If these senators had pledged to oppose funding for Obamacare, we wouldn’t have had to run ads against them,” said Executive Director Matt Hoskins. “They only have themselves to blame.”

© 2013 POLITICO LLC

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-97753.html [with (over 6,000) comments]


--


March of Dumbs
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Tuesday October 1, 2013
Congressional Republicans save America from the most insidious law ever created by man. (04:25)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-1-2013/march-of-dumbs [with comments]

*

March of Dumbs - Government Shutdown
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Tuesday October 1, 2013
The government shutdown curtails inessential programs like the FDA and supplemental nutrition for women, infants and children. (04:32)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-1-2013/march-of-dumbs---government-shutdown [with comments]


--


Ted Cruz gets pushback during closed-door meeting



Posted by CNN Political Unit
October 3rd, 2013 12:01 PM ET

Washington (CNN) - Sen. Ted Cruz got a lot of pushback from Republican colleagues during a closed-door meeting questioning his relentless effort to tie government funding to derailing Obamacare.

"Cruz was completely unapologetic about the ads that he is featured in on the Senate Conservatives Fund website that attack other Republicans. He sees himself as the only truly pure Republican. His colleagues are furious. He has no successful strategy but has managed to generate grass roots support for his position," one senior Republican source at Wednesday's meeting told CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

Cruz has urged Republicans in the House to stand firm and continue pushing any plan to fund the government to proposals aimed at curtailing the Affordable Care Act.

This summer, he appeared in ads produced by the Senate Conservatives Fund urging Republicans to push Congress to defund Obamacare.

This strategy has upset Senate Republicans and some House GOP members because some privately blame the freshman Texas lawmaker for causing the shutdown and boxing House Speaker John Boehner into a corner.

Cruz's spokesman did not have a response to reports of pushback during the Wednesday meeting. Cruz told Politico the media loves to cover internal Republican disagreements and "apparently some senators are content to fuel those stories with anonymous quotes."

Cruz also was unapologetic talking to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham earlier Wednesday.

"We've had now three times, the House has endeavored to pass compromise bills that would keep the government funded, but at the same time would start to address the enormous harms that Obamacare is inflicting on the American people. And three times, Harry Reid has said 'no, absolutely not, I will not talk, I will not compromise, I will not do anything – no.' And as long as he maintains that absolutist position, both Reid and President Obama have said they won't even sit down to talk. They want a shutdown," he said.

At a previous meeting of Senate Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins spoke about some of the ads in Maine that said she was not conservative enough, blaming Cruz for helping to divide the party.

During the Wednesday session, many senators spoke out and aimed their comments directly at Cruz, the GOP source told Borger.

While Cruz initially drew the anger of some Republicans weeks ago when the House passed the first bill to keep the government operating only if Obamacare was defunded because Democrats controlled the Senate, he then staged a 21-hour talkathon last week trying to prevent the Obamacare provision from being removed. He lost that effort but helped cement his stature with the Republican base.

That caused some Republicans to go public with their consternation.

Asked why Boehner can't bring up for consideration any bill he wants, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, told CNN Wednesday night that the "leadership made a decision to take the position that we are going to take the Ted Cruz strategy, and we are not going to fund the government until we get rid of Obamacare."

Nunes blames Cruz for causing the GOP not to have a choice and causing a shutdown.

"John Boehner said we'll take this Ted Cruz strategy. You guys went out for two months, made these commitments. We'll take it. We'll implement it. And now, here we are, it's fully implemented. ... I think Ted Cruz is one of the best politicians that's come around in a long time. He's able to rally the base, he's got a lot of money … There's a lot of consultants making money off this and lots of TV ads going on. The problem with it is, it's one thing to be good at politics. It's another thing to be not good at strategy."

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, has previously called Cruz "a fraud" for his promises of defunding Obamacare. But other Republicans are not backing away from Cruz, including Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, who is scheduled to hold an event with the senator on Saturday.

For Democrats, there is little question of who is in fact leading the anti-Obamacare effort and are eager to highlight Cruz's efforts.

"Senator Cruz is now a joint speaker," Reid said Thursday on the Senate floor. "He lectures the House on occasion as he does people over here."

Mo Elleithee, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement regarding Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus: "I think he probably has Speaker Cruz Boehner's number somewhere."

CNN's Kevin Bohn and Bryan Koenig contributed to this story.

© 2013 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/03/ted-cruz-gets-pushback-during-closed-door-meeting/ [with comments]


--


Powerful Senate Conservatives Fund Expands To Focus On House Races


AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite

Daniel Strauss – September 17, 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

The Senate Conservatives Fund, an organization that has emerged as a powerful challenger to incumbent Republicans who wade too far to the middle, is expanding its focus to the House of Representatives, creating a new force with deep coffers likely to divide an already ideologically split caucus of Republican lawmakers.

Prominent conservatives up for re-election like Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) should pay close attention. Sessions, the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee and former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has been in the crosshairs of the group and now faces a primary challenge from someone the organization could be very interested in backing.

The expansion, called the House Conservative Project, is still in its infancy, but the Senate Conservatives Fund has already begun targeting big-name House Republicans who are known as some of the most conservative in the body.

"Part of the reason for that is our House project -- we see it a little bit as building a farm team for the Senate," Senate Conservatives Fund Executive Director Matt Hoskins told TPM.

According to the Fund's website [ http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/about ], it only backs candidates who "support a congressional amendment to balance the federal budget without raising taxes," want a "full repeal" of Obamacare because it will "destroy American medicine and bankrupt our country" and oppose "taxpayer funding for abortion." The Senate Conservatives Fund raised $9 million in 2010 and handled $16 million in 2012.

The Fund started out as Jim DeMint's (R-SC) leadership political action committee in 2008, three and a half years after entering the Senate. DeMint left several years later, handing the reigns over to Hoskins, the senator's former chief of staff from his House days. It was under his leadership, in 2012, that the organization formed a super PAC. Its recent focus has mostly been on defunding Obamacare -- attacking [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/09/eric-cantor-obamacare-debt-ceiling-shutdown-default.php ] conservative Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- but The Senate Conservatives Fund also factors in fiscal and social issues for deciding on whether to support or oppose candidates.

The group also plays a role in endorsements -- previously backing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with a $500,000 supporting ad buy in 2012. Other past endorsements include Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) when Akin ran against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in 2012, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) in 2012 and Republican Ken Buck (R-CO) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in 2010.

In May, the Senate Conservatives Action super PAC, which is the independent expenditure political action committee connected to the Senate Conservatives Fund, spent $320,000 on ads against Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) who is facing a tough re-election fight against challenger Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR). Most of the super PAC's focus, though, has been on which Republican to back and which to attack.

A Senate Conservatives Fund endorsement does not necessarily mean a candidate will get elected (in addition to a misstep in choosing Akin, the group endorsed Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell in the 2010 general election for Senate), but by successfully backing Cruz, the group already has a growing contingent in the Senate. By picking some new winners in House races, it hopes to build a pipeline of promising candidates to the Senate.

With its new House project, the Senate Conservatives Fund plans to support candidates that standout as hard-line conservatives. So far the organization has only endorsed Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) for re-election, someone they see as a possible candidate to replace Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) when he leaves office in 2016. Unlike with the Senate, The Senate Conservatives Fund is willing to endorse incumbents in the House.

"Tom Coburn is retiring in Oklahoma and we'd love to see Jim Bridenstine run for the U.S. Senate and so we're going to support him now in the House in the hopes of helping elevate his profile," Hoskins said. "Maybe that's something he'll decide to do and if he does you can be sure we'll be there supporting him. He's a fantastic guy and just a very strong conservative in the House."

The Senate Conservatives Fund has started dipping its toe into the House waters on policy as well. Last week, it targeted [ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/scf-lobbies-house-offices-on-cr-96771.html ] 29 House Republicans with a mailer that urged them to oppose House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) recent continuing resolution budget proposal because it gave the Senate the option of stripping a provision aimed at defunding Obamacare.

The House members the Senate Conservatives Fund targeted are considered some of the loudest and most conservative in the chamber: Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). The group is using the same approach it has taken in the Senate -- target Republican lawmakers for refusing to follow The Senate Conservative Fund's preferred playbook on issues like defunding Obamacare or other hot topics.

Brian Walsh, formerly a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee who also served as Cornyn's chief communications strategist, argued that The Senate Conservative Fund doesn't actually aim to beat Democrats or even give Republicans control of both chambers of Congress again.

"They have become one hundred percent focused not only electing candidates but on raising money for themselves," Walsh told TPM. "The Senate Conservatives Fund has been a tremendous detriment to Republican efforts to win back the majority."

Walsh noted that instead of running ads against incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) or moving to support one of her potential challengers, they're attacking her colleague, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), on Obamacare. While Burr opposes the health care law, the group made a small ad buy attacking the North Carolina Republican for saying an initiative to defund Obamacare was the "dumbest idea I've ever heard."

Walsh wrote a scathing op-ed in U.S. News [ http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2013/09/12/the-senate-conservative-fund-and-the-heritage-foundation-profit-from-attacking-republicans ] last week on The Senate Conservative Fund, noting that the Senate Conservatives Fund had already gone after Sessions. The former NRCC chairman helped Republicans gain 63 seats in the House, has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association, a 100 percent rating from National Right to Life and a 97 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Nevertheless, Walsh wrote, Sessions has become a target.

Democrats, meanwhile, say the Fund so far has done more to foster internal divisions among Republicans than fight Democrats.

"I think the biggest effect they've had is to intensify the civil war that's going on in the Republican party," Democratic National Committee press secretary Justin Barasky told TPM. "Not just in this cycle but in the last cycle as well."

An important thing to remember about the group, Barasky noted, is that they oftentimes back or oppose a candidate based on small policy differences. Cornyn is a good example. The Senate Conservatives Fund has strongly criticized [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/how-the-uber-conservative-john-cornyn-ticked-off-the-tea-party.php?m=1 ] the senior senator from Texas for refusing to sign on to an effort to only back a government funding or debt limit bill if that bill defunds Obamacare. Cornyn has responded to this criticism by stressing that the disagreement is really over how to defund the law, not whether or not the law should be defunded.

Meanwhile, a prime candidate for the Fund's new House project could be Dallas tea party activist Katrina Pierson, who jumped into [ http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/freedomworks-endorses-primary-challenge-to-rep-pete-sessions ] the race for Sessions's seat last week. Pierson was immediately endorsed by Freedomworks and could attract the support of the Senate Conservatives Fund as well.

In announcing her candidacy, Pierson accused Sessions of playing "the go-along-to-get-along, business as usual politics that have been hurting this country for so long," according to the Dallas Morning News [ http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130912-tea-party-activist-katrina-pierson-challenges-pete-sessions-for-dallas-congressional-seat.ece ].

That's the kind of conservative-on-Republican attack language that the Senate Conservatives Fund seems to want to hear.

© 2013 TPM Media LLC

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/powerful-senate-conservatives-fund-expands-to-focus-on-house-races [no comments yet]


--


Obamacare Begins
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Tuesday October 1, 2013
Jason Jones compares the boring substance of Obamacare supporters with the punchy spunk of its conservative opponents. (05:27)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-1-2013/obamacare-begins [with comments]


--


Inside Obama's Game Plan For The Debt Limit


President Barack Obama speaks as he stands with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and people who support the Affordable Care Act, his signature health care law, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013. Congress plunged the nation into a partial government shutdown Tuesday as a long-running dispute over President Barack Obama's health care law forced about 800,000 federal workers off the job, suspending all but essential services.
AP

By Sam Stein
Posted: 10/03/2013 4:33 pm EDT | Updated: 10/03/2013 5:31 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Three senior Obama administration officials have made it abundantly clear that the president has no interest in budging from his position on the government shutdown or the looming debt ceiling fight.

The officials met with a handful of columnists and reporters on Thursday morning on condition that they not be named or quoted. They said President Barack Obama feels as strongly about this issue as he has about anything else during his time in office, including passing health care reform.

The meeting came the day after congressional leaders and the president met in the White House in hopes of finding a path forward on the dual budget fights. That meeting ended without an agreement. And the fact that both sides continued a media blitz the morning after suggests that a resolution remains far off.

What's driving the president, his aides stressed, is a belief that he needs to reorient the balance of powers within the federal government. The three officials repeatedly argued that the losing party in a national election couldn't be allowed to essentially nullify the results of that election through budget sabotage.

And so lines have to be drawn -- not just to affect the policy outcomes of the next few weeks, but to set a precedent for future negotiations.

All of which raises the question: How does the current standoff end? If House Republicans won't pass a deal to end the shutdown or raise the debt limit without concessions, and the president refuses to give in, is default inevitable? Will the government ever reopen?

The administration is betting that at some point, the GOP will understand that its position is futile. And while that's a fairly big bet, the aides believe that all other options are flawed.

Talks with Republicans can take place outside of the debt limit and government shutdown fights, the officials said, but to negotiate in the context of those fights would be to institutionalize political hostage taking. It would also be difficult, since Republicans' demands are changing on a daily basis. As one official put it: the president can't help House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) out of his current quandary because he doesn't know what approach Boehner wants to take.

The Obama administration could work with the Senate to try and put pressure on the House. If the Senate passed a bill to raise the debt limit, it would ramp up pressure on Boehner to follow suit in the lower chamber. But that tactic has been tried with other bills -- notably immigration reform -- and it failed to move the House.

The White House could try to directly engage the conservative wing of the House that convinced Boehner to make sharp demands as part of a government funding deal. But administration officials don't see that path as viable, in part because those members have built their political reputations on opposing the president.

The president could look for a way around the debt limit fight, such as invoking the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt limit. But the officials ruled this out, as they have many times before, saying that it would produce similar results to a default, since it would involve asking the market to buy bonds that were legally questionable.

The final option would be for the president to end up acquiescing to some Republican demands.

Much of the hourlong discussion with the administration officials was centered on this possible outcome. Would the White House really prefer allowing the debt limit to be breached over paying some political ransom?

The answer was close to definitive. If the president relented this time around, the opposition's demands would only increase -- and there would be no guarantee that future standoffs over the debt ceiling would be avoided.

But that logic does open the window to one possible deal on the debt ceiling. The president could theoretically agree to some Republican demands in exchange for language that abolished the debt ceiling as an issue altogether. In that scenario, the GOP would be able to claim a policy win and Obama would be able to move on, while ensuring that neither he nor future presidents would ever find themselves in the same bind.

The Huffington Post asked one of the senior officials if this idea had been explored. It hadn't.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/obama-debt-limit_n_4038446.html [with (over 18,000) comments]


--


What the White House fears most about the debt limit fight

By Greg Sargent, Published: October 3, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Right now, the primary fear among senior Obama administration officials is that John Boehner and the GOP leadership don’t grasp just how damaging Obama believes it would be to the remainder of his tenure — and the office of the presidency itself and the proper balance of power between it and Congress — if he were to concede anything in exchange for GOP support for a debt limit hike.

Yesterday’s meeting between Congressional leaders and Obama, in which he reiterated his refusal to negotiate over the debt limit, went some way towards driving that home to the Speaker, senior administration officials believe. But there’s still some worry that perhaps GOP leaders still think the President will fold in the end, and that as a result, they still don’t grasp just how much pressure there is on them to resolve internal party differences that are making it impossible for Boehner to agree to raise the debt limit without extracting concessions Tea Partyers would view as a victory.

Obama and his senior advisers view the debt limit battle as a “must win” fight — not one where the difference can be split in any meaningful sense. They see it as a battle that, if not concluded decisively, could have lasting ramifications not just for this presidency, but for others to follow. Some of this has to do with the electoral calendar. If Obama were to offer up anything meaningful in the way of policy concessions in exchange for a debt limit hike now, that would only make a worse showdown more likely later, particularly in 2014, when members of Congress are up for reelection and Republican lawmakers are facing possible primary challenges, particularly in conservative districts.

Publicly, the President escalated his warnings today [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-day-3-of-shutdown-focus-turns-to-debt-ceiling-deadline/2013/10/03/21f42abc-2c24-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html ] about what default would mean for the country, and the Treasury Department released a report [ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/treasury-department-report-on-economic-fallout-of-2011-debt-ceiling-impasse/495/ ] warning of the consequences brinksmanship itself would have for the economy.

Beyond this presidency, Obama and senior officials think that if the debt limit continues to be seen as a legitimate lever with which to extract major policy concessions, it could mar the appropriate balance of power between future presidents and Congresses. This is a defining moment, one in which it is imperative to stabilize the imbalances that continue to convulse our system, largely due to the deeply unhinged expectations of the Tea Party, and the outsized influence it continues to wield over the GOP and its leadership.

Obama liked to say in 2012 that the election would break the Tea Party fever — or “pop the blister,” as he put it. That obviously didn’t happen. Now — given the calamitous damage default could unleash, and given the continued damage future threats of default could do to the economy and political and governmental system — a clean and decisive victory is viewed as an imperative.

By this same metric, of course, a cave — should it happen, which Obama is adamantly resolved against — would be a catastrophic, epic failure.

There are reasons Republicans might be tempted to look back at Obama’s previous willingness to legitimize — by agreeing under political duress to a terrible austerity deal in 2011 — the idea that the debt limit is a legitimate lever for extracting policy concessions. But such conclusions fail to reckon with the profound differences between the two different moments [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/03/the-morning-plum-republicans-and-their-voters-are-stuck-in-2011/ ]. Still, liberals and some Congressional Democrats, too, look to 2011 and worry about a rerun.

The principle articulated internally is simple. Never mind delaying or defunding Obamacare — there will be no policy concessions in exchange for a debt limit that would damage Dem priorities. Republicans must refocus on legitimate legislative means, i.e., the legislative process’ normal give and take. In exchange for the debt limit hike, there will be no medical device tax repeal. No Keystone pipeline. Obama administration officials are open to the possibility of face saving moves by Republicans being part of the endgame, but only ones involving process — not policy concessions — such as the McConnell provision [ http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/271145-treasury-details-mcconnell-provision-on-debt-limit- ], a device floated last year that would have largely transferred debt limit authority to the president.

Senior Obama officials recognize that the political fallout from the debt limit fight could easily blow back on the President to some degree, but on balance believe it puts the GOP in significantly more danger.

Senior administration officials believe that as default looms, Republican leaders very well may realize that this problem is on them to solve. But they are by no means certain this realization will dawn in time, and even if it does, nor are they certain whether Republican leaders can solve their internal divisions or that John Boehner will summon the will necessary to alienate the hardliners in his caucus if those divisions can’t be resolved. And so the possibility of serious miscalculations — leading to disaster — remains very real.

*

Related

Republicans have no idea why they’ve shut down the government
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/03/republicans-have-no-idea-why-theyve-shut-down-the-government/

Gallery: 10 myths about Obama (that people actually believe)

We’ve all heard them: Misinformation about President Obama has a penchant for spreading like wildfire. The Post’s Swati Sharma attempts to set a few matters straight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-lies-about-obama-people-actually-believe/2013/09/06/c9bfd7aa-14be-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_gallery.html

*

© 2013 The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/03/what-the-white-house-fears-most-about-the-debt-limit-fight/ [with comments]


--


Shutstorm 2013: America Sits on Its Balls
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Wednesday October 2, 2013
Congressional Republican fart-knockers complain about the shutdown they themselves caused. (03:52)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-2-2013/shutstorm-2013--america-sits-on-its-balls [with comments]

*

Shutstorm 2013: America Sits on Its Balls - Republican Shutdown
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Wednesday October 2, 2013
John Oliver explains the electorally invincible strategy behind unpopular Congressional actions. (06:09)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-2-2013/shutstorm-2013--america-sits-on-its-balls---republican-shutdown [with comments]


--


Are the Republicans Crazy? No!

By Kathleen Reardon
Professor, USC Marshall School
Posted: 10/02/2013 11:54 am

One of the greatest dangers in negotiation is to assume that how you see the world is also how others see it.

Jon Stewart [ http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-30-2013/jon-stewart-s-rockin--shutdown-eve ] masterfully depicts the Republican Party as having "left the plane of reason" in presuming that it gets to reject laws in force. But that depiction makes sense only in a context where rational is defined as following the rules.

It would be wise to stop thinking that Republicans have lost their minds. Such assumptions weaken negotiators. More than meets the eye is going on here.

There are two general types of negotiation. The "win-win" approach (aka "integrative negotiation") is marked by collaboration and creative problem solving. Most of the popular books on negotiation emphasize a win-win approach.

What we haven't heard so much about is "distributive negotiation." That's where someone must win, and someone must lose. It's exactly the approach House Republicans have chosen.

In distributive negotiations you watch your back and you never assume that irrationality lies behind seemingly reckless actions. At the extreme of distributive negotiation, the most intransigent side loses sight of its original goals and tramples on the wellbeing of others in the service of being able to say: "We won." Sound familiar?

When winning or disruption is all that matters, then all other values must take a back seat. The rational course then is more a matter of achieving your priorities than adherence to ethics, truthfulness, accepted rules or common practice.

Think about the concept of fairness. People are supposed to respect fairness, right? ("Supposed to" being the key term here.) But an argument based on fairness only has persuasive power if the people accused of being "unfair" care enough about that label to have it influence their actions. If there is a higher concern, such as being perceived as a team player even among bad guys, fairness takes a back seat. Any negotiator who keeps trying to apply the fairness argument with such opponents is doomed to failure.

This brings us to the Republicans' decision to shut down the government rather than be perceived as having lost. They have bound themselves to the win-lose distributive approach to the point where negotiation is impossible. Versatility, creativity and flexibility equal weakness. The ground rules have changed. Winning is everything.

Machiavelli [ http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/machiavelli.html ] must have had "princes" like those on the far right in mind when he wrote: "Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how to not be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires."

The Republicans have chosen not to be good, not to be fair, not to be rational in the common sense of these words. The needs of the "folks" pale by comparison to the distributive demands of the moment. Since they can't win -- and since where they have positioned themselves anything less than a win is a shameful loss -- they have chosen to bring the game to a halt. Their goal is to "win" by disallowing a win by the opposition and then to worry about explanations later.

Of course if Republicans take this priority too far, some of them will be punished come election time. But they're not thinking that far ahead right now, and are likely banking on an ability to frame their actions in some favorable light.

The ball in not only in their court right now, they think they own it. Laugh as we might at the ludicrous nature of their behavior, they aren't playing to the same audience as Democrats. They're in an entirely different theater. The show is underway. The die is cast. Now all they care about is how they look on TV.

Kathleen writes on politics and negotiation here [ http://www.kathleenkelleyreardon.com/ ] too. Her latest book on behind-the-scenes politics is the debut mystery-thriller - Shadow Campus [ http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Campus-Kathleen-Kelley-Reardon/dp/193519917X ].

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/are-the-republicans-crazy_b_4030629.html [with comments]


--


This Quote Says Everything About The GOP's Shutdown Stand

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner [ http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-stands-firm-against-funding-bill-will-link-to-debt-ceiling-fight/article/2536750 ]. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
10/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html [with embedded video report and "John Boehner's Shutdown Showdown Stares" slideshow, and (over 18,000) comments]


--


Hot Mic Catches Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell Discussing Their Actual Government Shutdown Concerns

Posted: 10/03/2013 9:54 am EDT | Updated: 10/03/2013 2:53 pm EDT

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were caught on a hot mic Wednesday discussing talking-points for the shutdown by local news station WPSD 6 [ http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/home/ticker/Live-mic-catches-Senators-McConnell-and-Paul-talking-strategy-226238531.html ].

"I just did CNN and I just go over and over again 'We're willing to compromise. We're willing to negotiate.' I think... I don't think they poll tested we won't negotiate. I think it's awful for [Democrats] to say that over and over again," Paul said.

"Yeah, I do too and I, and I just came back from that two hour meeting with them and that, and that was basically the same view privately as it was publicly," McConnell agreed.

Paul added, "I think if we keep saying, 'We wanted to defund it. We fought for that and that we're willing to compromise on this', I think they can't, we're gonna, I think... well, I know we don't want to be here, but we're gonna win this, I think."

The comments give an inside look at the messaging strategy as Republicans hope to force Democrats to agree to a government funding bill [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/government-shutdown_n_4035949.html?utm_hp_ref=politics ] that would also dismantle or delay parts of Obamacare, the health care reform law passed in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, months before President Barack Obama cruised to victory in a presidential election in which the measure was a key issue. Democrats, including Obama, have said they won't negotiate on the issue, and have called for Republicans to pass a clean measure to fully reopen the government.

The government has been shut down since Tuesday, and progress on negotiations has been minimal since then. The widespread furloughing of federal employees and closures of other government-run facilities and services have already begun to make an impact across the nation [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/government-shutdown-damage_n_4031714.html ].

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/rand-paul-mitch-mcconnell-hot-mic_n_4036591.html [with embedded video report, and (over 16,000) comments]; the above YouTube of the exchange at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gXIgAAN3o4 , also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w96Hr6MrLFI and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PByJ7j7XST4


--


FreedomWorks CEO Says Hard Right Should Stay The Course Past Debt Limit Deadline


FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe, (R) at a Tea Party 'Get Out The Vote' rally for Pat Toomey at SmokeEaters Pub in Philadelphia on October 12, 2010.
(Photo by Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images)

By Jon Ward
Posted: 10/02/2013 8:43 pm EDT | Updated: 10/03/2013 9:32 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- As Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and congressional Republicans angle for a deal with President Barack Obama to resolve the government shutdown, the leader of one influential conservative group remains unreceptive to the idea of any grand bargain.

Matt Kibbe, the CEO of the conservative nonprofit FreedomWorks, said House Republicans should continue pushing to end or delay the president's health care reform law. Kibbe insisted that Obama could conceivably sign a bill that gutted, or at least delayed, his signature legislative accomplishment.

"It's certainly possible because he's already done it. He opened this can of worms by delaying the employer mandate and delaying some other 19 provisions," Kibbe said.

Kibbe further expressed the belief that conservatives should hold out for concessions from Obama and Democrats even if it means going past the Oct. 17 deadline when the U.S. government runs out of money. At that point, lawmakers will need to raise the so-called debt ceiling in order to allow the Treasury Department to borrow more money to finance the government's spending commitments.

"We will go past the deadline for the debt ceiling, and I don't think that that is a bad thing if we can get to better fiscal policy," Kibbe said.

In the showdown over the government shutdown, and the looming deadline on raising the country's borrowing limit, one of the major questions is how the few dozen tea party-aligned House Republicans will react to potential calls from Republican leaders to strike a deal with Democrats.

Will they get on board with an effort to that might include getting rid of across-the-board federal budget cuts in exchange for tax reform, or more targeted spending cuts, or even entitlement reform? Will they vote no, but peaceably? Or will they revolt, threatening House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) hold on his job?

So far this group of conservatives, led by figures such as Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has been the main reason behind Boehner's continued attempts to extract concessions from Democrats in exchange for funding the government, rather than passing a clean bill with Democratic support.

These hard-right members, in turn, are heavily influenced by outside pressure groups like FreedomWorks, one of a few conservative organizations based in D.C. aligned with the tea party grassroots base of the GOP. The group has been a vocal supporter of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in his efforts to stop Obamacare at all costs and has mobilized activists to contact their members of Congress on issues such as the current fiscal fight.

FreedomWorks and other tea party groups have been the beneficiaries of a series of institutional changes that reduced the influence of congressional leadership positions and handed outside forces more power.

The elimination of earmarks removed a key way for congressional leaders to help or punish rank-and-file members, and redistricting has created more politically homogenous districts for members, rewarding ideological purity over bipartisan deal-making. As a result, newly arrived lawmakers care less and less about landing plum committee spots, another carrot that leadership had dangled in front of members in the past.

Boehner's aversion to a clean bill to end the government shutdown -- in other words, one that would outrage his most conservative members -- has given these back-benchers leverage against their leader. The one caveat is that Boehner loyalists have told this reporter that he would be willing to lose his speakership over a grand bargain to resolve the country's current long-term problem with its entitlement programs.

Kibbe showed no inclination to get on board with a possible effort by Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, to negotiate an agreement with Democrats that might include swapping sequestration's spending cuts for more specific cuts or tax reform -- an idea floated on Tuesday by one Republican leadership aide.

"As far as I'm concerned the sequester is something that is already an agreement that's sealed. I don't see any reason to reopen that. I'd be all for tax simplification and going after all the junk in the tax code, but I don't think I would trade it for the sequester. I would trade it for something meaningful like increasing the debt ceiling," Kibbe said.

If Kibbe's view remains the view of the GOP's right flank, that will complicate any efforts by party leaders to reach a bargain -- grand or not -- with Democrats. The task then will be to pacify these insurgents enough to keep them from rising up in anger over the direction that Ryan, a respected conservative, and Boehner are taking them.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/freedomworks-debt-limit_n_4033156.html [with comments]


--


Klan group behind Des Moines flyers seeks a better public image


A white pride group that left flyers at the doorsteps of Des Moines, Wash., residents in July wants the public to give them a chance. The flyers, which were folded and tucked in a Ziploc bag full of small, white rocks, read: "Neighborhood Watch: You can sleep well tonight knowing the UKA is awake."
(Photo: Brandi Kruse/KIRO Radio)

Listen: On Assignment: Klan group behind Des Moines flyers want a better public image
[audio embedded]

BY Brandi Kruse on September 28, 2013 @ 11:46 pm (Updated: 9:29 am - 9/30/13)

It had been a long time since the city of Des Moines, Wash., had a run-in with white supremacists.
A decade ago, a group of self-proclaimed skinheads would stand on a corner and deliver racially-charged propaganda, recalled Sgt. Doug Jenkins of the Des Moines Police Department.

"They actually lived here, and they'd stand up at 216th Street and the highway and pass out flyers," he said. "They'd wear their uniforms and everything."

"But," he said, "we haven't heard from them in a long time."

So, when residents woke up to find flyers [ http://mynorthwest.com/646/2318531/White-supremacists-say-theyre-watching-over-Des-Moines ] from the United Klans of America on their doorsteps one morning in late July, no one was really sure what to think.

Folded and tucked in a Ziploc bag full of small, white rocks, the flyers read: "Neighborhood Watch: You can sleep well tonight knowing the UKA is awake."

A 60-year-old woman who lives in one of several neatly-kept condos in a quiet neighbored along 20th Avenue South said she discovered the flyer when she walked onto her porch around noon on either July 20 or July 21.

"I immediately got kind of a cold shudder," said the woman, who described her neighborhood as racially diverse. "It occurred to me that they were saying that white supremacists are among us, and they're ready to act when they feel threatened."

"Why did they target my block in my community?" she said.

Police received one 911 call and two other reports from residents who received the flyers and were concerned. According to police records, an officer was dispatched to the area and collected one of the baggies, which was placed into evidence.

"The bottom line here is no crime was committed. There wasn't any malicious harassment," Sgt. Jenkins said. "It just didn't rise to the level of criminal activity."

A few weeks after the flyers were left in Des Moines, KIRO Radio began to exchange messages with a member of the UKA Northwest, who said the flyers had been misunderstood. He wanted to clear up what he believes to be misperceptions about the group and what it stands for.

Eric, a 37-year-old lifelong resident of Tukwila, said he became involved in the white pride movement in high school and founded the UKA Northwest two years ago.

The United Klans of America, which has its roots in the Klu Klux Klan, was one of the largest Klan organizations in the United States in the 1960s and 70s. Eric said he was prevented from disclosing the number of members in the UKA Northwest, which he said includes individuals in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

The group's website has a series of statements about white pride such as, "There is a sickness that has affected White Americans for quite a number of years the lack of PRIDE! We can help find the cure."

Eric said the UKA is about white pride, not white power.

"(The UKA is) truly about America first, about our people, our county and just putting pride back in our country," he said during a recent interview at Crystal Springs Park.

Currently on disability, Eric said running the UKA's Northwest chapter has become a full-time job for which he receives no pay. The married father of one hosts a two-hour radio show on Tuesday evenings, during which listeners can call in to discuss current events and issues of race.

"Good evening, racial greetings brothers and sisters. Thank you for joining us for Klasp KKountry, brought to you by the United Klans of America," he opened a recent episode.

Earlier this month, the UKA used the radio show to declare war on the Westboro Baptist Church and its members, saying the group, known for protesting at the funerals of soldiers, is made up of "true hatemongers."

Eric said the UKA is guided by the phrase, "Non silba, sed anthar," which is Latin for, "Not for self, but for others." He said members support various charities, including the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Ronald McDonald House, and Feeding America.

"Back in the day, Klansmen would bring blankets and food to colored families," he said. "It happened, it's real, the photos exist."

One such photo serves as the backdrop for his personal Twitter page.

"We don't hate anybody," Eric said, when asked if he would consider himself to be racist.

"Black people?" he was asked.

"Absolutely don't hate them at all," he said.

"White? Hispanic? Asian?"

"If they're a legal, law-abiding citizen, it doesn't matter," he said. "There's plenty of white trash and white scum out there, too."

Eric claimed the flyers were not intended to carry racial undertones or to scare residents, but rather to comfort them.

"What did you mean by, "Sleep well tonight, the UKA is watching?" he was asked.

"That means you don't have to worry about it. We're doing our duty to uphold the Constitution and protect and defend the people of this country," he said.

"Do you understand that someone could perceive that as being something a little more cryptic?"

"If you look at our flyer, there's nothing intimidating or hateful on it," he said.

Eric said he wants the public to give the group a chance, and hopes the Klan's public image will change over time.

"I would hope that they would have an open mind since that seems to be what they're pushing and actually look into our organization and listen to us, see what we do and then go from there," he said.

The woman who received one of the flyers in Des Moines said she could never be convinced to support the group.

"I don't think there's any amount of convincing that could happen that I wouldn't think there's something racist behind this," she said. "Certainly, with the name Klan, you've got to distance yourself from that. There will never be a positive Nazi organization ever again, either. It carries way too much baggage and I don't' think there's anything they can do to repair their image."

"If you truly are not racist, prove it," she said. "Prove that you have no ill will towards other people."

Eric said the group will continue to do public outreach, including more flyer drops. The Des Moines Police Department said such activities are protected under free speech and cannot be stopped, despite how it might make residents feel.

Copyright © 2013 Bonneville International (emphasis added)

http://mynorthwest.com/980/2364233/Klan-group-behind-Des-Moines-flyers-seeks-a-better-public-image [with comments]


--


Obama, Bibi, Tea Party



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/obama-bibi-tea-party_b_4021945.html [with comments]


--


So far on Capitol Hill, no end in sight over shutdown



Video [embedded]

House Speak John Boehner told the press Friday that "This isn’t some damn game," and that Republicans want to sit down with Democrats and negotiate reopening the government.

By Paul Kane and Josh Hicks, Friday, October 4, 2013 8:51 AM

The political impasse that shuttered the federal government at midnight on Monday spilled into its first weekend showing no signs of abating, and leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers on furlough and museums and national parks across the country closed.

House Republican leaders and the White House sought to reassure those furloughed federal workers that they will be paid when the shutdown ends, but resolving the crisis remains a politically difficult task since both sides see broader strategic implications to the outcome.

The GOP decision to attach the language to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act to the stalled spending resolution was a tactical one pushed by conservatives, who think that the spending bills represent their moment of greatest leverage with President Obama.

On the other hand, the president and his Democratic allies in Congress are hoping to turn back the clock to a time before Washington was not constantly on the brink of fiscal meltdown.

After nearly three years of jumping from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis, Democrats want to establish a different order. They would like to make temporary funding bills, such as the one the Senate passed last week to keep the government funded, and regular increases to the debt ceiling perfunctory matters that are routinely approved without bringing Washington to the brink of disaster each time.

But the tea-party-backed members leading the fight against “Obamacare,” and backing the shutdown, say they came to Washington to disrupt the routine.

Obama and congressional Democratic leaders have refused to engage in any negotiations thus far, saying that they do not want to establish a precedent — for the rest of Obama’s presidency and for future presidents — that the party controlling just one chamber of Congress could hold hostage these basic legislative functions in exchange for political ransom.

Instead, Democrats have said they will only consider broader budget talks, including some tax and entitlement reforms and relief from automatic spending caps, once Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and the House approves a resolution that funds government operations and ends the shutdown.

“Once the government reopens and we get the debt ceiling settled, we’ll be happy to talk to them about anything they want to talk about,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Friday afternoon.

A few hours before Reid spoke, Boehner reiterated GOP demands that Obama must negotiate with them on both funding levels for federal agencies and the pending Oct. 17 deadline when the Treasury will loose its ability to continue borrowing money to finance the federal government.

“This isn’t some damn game. All we want is to sit down and have a discussion,” Boehner angrily told reporters Friday.

Republicans cite a [bullshit] long history of presidents signing legislation lifting the debt ceiling that was the negotiated result of talk between the White House and Congress.

At stake now is a government shutdown that could soon become one of the longest in history, and, more important to global financial markets, a possible default on the nation’s $16.7 trillion debt.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Friday that the House will vote this weekend on legislation to provide back pay to federal workers who have been furloughed during the government shutdown. Cantor made the announcement as civil servants rallied outside the Capitol to end the closure.

Cantor indicated through social media that he expected the legislation to pass, saying on Twitter: “The House will pass a bill to pay federal workers for their time on furlough once the shutdown ends.” The vote will take place Saturday, according to Cantor’s office.

Boehner and Cantor had for weeks been counseling their rank and file against a government shutdown, fearing that most of the political blame would fall on Republicans. But, now that they are several days into the shutdown, GOP leaders have instead opted to use the reopening of federal agencies as its own bargaining chip in what they want to be a broader set of talks.

Despite the heated talk about gutting the health-care law, Republicans have been quietly trying to coalesce around a set of goals that could win support from Democrats in a bipartisan pact that would resolve the annual spending bills and increase the debt ceiling. In exchange for lifting the debt ceiling, the possibilities floated include smaller cuts to the health law, including repeal of a tax on medical devices that funds a portion of the law but is unpopular even among many Democrats. Additionally, Republicans might push for a repeal of a medical advisory board that conservative critics have called a “death panel.”

Most likely, Republicans want to focus on reforms to entitlements, including a change in how the inflation index is measured for adjustments to Social Security benefits, and some other tweaks to mandatory spending. If those were adopted, Republican advisers said, it would pave the way for relief from the automatic cuts imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act.

All of this could be accompanied by vague language calling for the tax-writing committees in Congress to engage in a rewrite of the tax code.

After initial fears that Boehner was restarting talks of a “grand bargain” — at one point in 2011, he and Obama were discussing a $4 trillion package of tax hikes and entitlement reforms — most Republicans left a Friday morning GOP huddle understanding that their leaders were trying to merge two big issues into one solution.

“That’s kind of what the calendar is dictating,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a leader of the conservative bloc.

“You need to go ahead and do it all at once,” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said.

But Democrats are adamant that they will not take up such a broad agenda in the days ahead, heightening the chances of a prolonged shutdown as well as a default.

Obama, visiting for lunch a Taylor Gourmet sandwich shop near the White House with Vice President Biden, said the shutdown could end in 30 minutes if Boehner would approve the Senate-passed funding bill, which has no restrictions to the health law. Obama also dismissed a background quote in the Wall Street Journal attributed to a senior White House official that Democrats were “winning” the showdown.

“As long as they’re off the job, nobody’s winning, and that’s the point,” Obama said referring to furloughed federal workers. “We should get this over with as soon as possible.”

Reid continued his personal feud with Boehner, whom he accused of going back on his word that the House would avert a shutdown by passing a stopgap funding bill that would pass the Senate. Instead, the Democratic leader said Boehner has given in to his right flank out of fear that passing legislation with Democratic votes would jeopardize his hold on the speaker’s gavel.

“What is more important, our country or a position of leadership?” Reid asked.

Lori Montgomery and Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.

© 2013 The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-cancels-asia-trip-as-shutdown-debate-shifts-from-health-care-law-to-debt-ceiling/2013/10/04/8225784c-2cf5-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html [with (over 5,000) comments]


--


Flailing and Failing

by Jared Bernstein
Oct 02, 2013 at 11:04 pm

Isn’t there some scientific principle where the stability of one object leads to greater instability in another object?

The more President Obama and Harry Reid assert their simple strategy–we won’t negotiate under these conditions; pass a clean budget patch and debt ceiling bill and then we’ll talk–the wilder the House R’s are getting.

I just read this Politico piece [ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-grand-bargain-congress-97757.html ] suggesting that now a bunch of the Republican leaders want to revert to a “grand bargain”–a big budget deal wherein R’s get entitlement cuts and D’s and the WH get new tax revenues.

Say what?

They (the R’s) couldn’t close a grand bargain for years, but now they can somehow pull it off in a few days? With revenues? Having nothing to do with Obamacare?

And what are they saying here–that they’d accept clean budget patch and debt ceiling bills on the condition that there’s then a grand bargain? Maybe they’d like a supercommittee??

Or are they saying that only after a grand bargain will they accept clean bills? Because if that’s where they are, it’s deeply inconsistent with WH/Reid position.

See for yourself, but that Politico piece read like Mandarin Chinese to me. The ad hockery among the R’s right now is, if not remarkable, then alarming. They’re flailing about.

Tea Partier Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) sums their position up nicely [ http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/10/02/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html ], I think: “We’re not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Word to that.

© 2013 by Jared Bernstein

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/flailing-and-failing/ [with comments] [also at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/republicans-government-shutdown_b_4037618.html (with comments)]


--


Shutstorm 2013: America Sits on Its Balls - Bias on Bulls**t Mountain

[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/ny-daily-news-ted-cruz-world-war-2-shutdown_n_4029194.html ]
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Thursday October 3, 2013
Could there be a higher octane fuel for the Fox News false outrage exploitation engine than wheelchair-bound World War II veterans? (06:19)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-3-2013/shutstorm-2013--america-sits-on-its-balls---bias-on-bulls--t-mountain [with comments]

*

Shutstorm 2013: America Sits on Its Balls - Smokey the Bear
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Thursday October 3, 2013
Federal employee and American icon Smokey the Bear weathers the government shutdown. (03:11)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-3-2013/shutstorm-2013--america-sits-on-its-balls---smokey-the-bear [with comments]

*

Representative Scott Rigell: Republican Traitor
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Thursday October 3, 2013
One Republican congressman voted against shutting down the government, so Samantha Bee finds out what's wrong with him. (04:04)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-3-2013/representative-scott-rigell--republican-traitor [with comments[


--


House Republicans and the Betrayal of Democracy

By Geoffrey R. Stone [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/ ]
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Posted: 10/01/2013 11:37 pm

A threat is an expression of intention to inflict harm on others unless the target of the threat agrees to do what the person making the threat demands. A threat uses coercion rather than persuasion to effect change. As a general rule, democratic governments do not negotiate with those who threaten their people with harm. The reason is simple: Democracies should not make public policy in response to threats, and those who threaten should not be rewarded for threatening harm to the nation.

What makes the House Republicans' decision to shut down the federal government an immoral and unconscionable "threat" rather than an ordinary political disagreement? The answer is simple. House Republicans who do not have the votes to repeal Obamacare through the processes of democracy threatened to close the federal government, to throw hundreds of thousands of innocent government employees out of work, and to damage the nation's economy unless the Senate and the President acceded to their demands. By threatening to wreak havoc with the national interest and inflicting serious harm on hard-working, loyal public employees, they are attempting to coerce rather than to persuade the government into doing what they want. The House Republicans, in short, are holding the nation itself hostage to their demands. This is not democratic governance. This is extortion, plain and simple. In any other circumstance, this would be criminal conduct.

Of course, as the House Republicans glibly say on the talk shows, the Senate and the President can "solve" the problem any time they want by giving in to those who are inflicting ongoing harm to the nation. But if they do so, they will inevitably invite similarly destructive behavior in the future. When dealing with a blackmailer, extortionist, or kidnapper, it is never a wise response to give in to the demands if the blackmailer, extortionist or kidnapper is a repeat player.

Of course, the House Republicans have every right to try to get their preferred policies enacted into law through the democratic process. They have tried to do this politically, electorally and judicially. They have failed at every turn. The have lost every time they have tried to repeal Obamacare through the legislative process. They have lost in the Supreme Court when they challenged the constitutionality of the law. They have failed politically with the electorate when they were soundly defeated in the 2012 election. Indeed, the only reason House Republicans can play this cruel and criminal game at all is because they gerrymandered congressional districts to enable them to control the House even though they were defeated by the Democrats in the national popular vote for Congress. Nonetheless, they are free to keep trying to achieve their goals in every legal manner. But what they cannot morally do is to attempt to get their preferred policies enacted into law by threatening to inflict harm on the nation and its public servants.

The behavior of the House Republicans is nothing short of reprehensible. They are not only harming innocent government employees and damaging the nation, but they are also dishonoring the very spirit of their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Their behavior is nothing less than a perverse and unconscionable betrayal of our democracy.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/house-republicans-and-the_b_4027251.html [with comments]


--


The Moderates Who Lighted the Fuse


Edel Rodriguez

By GEOFFREY KABASERVICE
Published: October 3, 2013

WASHINGTON — THE government shutdown is the work of the so-called kamikaze caucus of about 40 Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives. But why is the body of the Republican Party in thrall to its erratic right foot? Maybe the real blame should go to the far more numerous non-Tea Party Republicans, from Speaker John A. Boehner down, who have been unable or unwilling to restrain the radicals.

Behind this question lies another. Why are Republican legislators like Peter T. King of New York and Devin Nunes of California unwittingly repeating the errors of a previous generation of moderate Republicans who elevated Newt Gingrich to party leadership?

It was Mr. Gingrich who pioneered the political dysfunction we still live with. His inflammatory rhetoric provided a model for the grandstanding guerrilla warfare of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. And his actions — particularly his move to shut down the government in 1995 and 1996 — undermined popular trust and ushered in the present political era of confrontation and obstruction.

But here’s the catch: Mr. Gingrich, of Georgia, rose to party leadership because he was the preferred candidate of the moderates themselves. They even sided with him against Robert H. Michel of Illinois, the House minority leader from 1981 until 1995, who, in his civility and willingness to cooperate with Democrats, embodied the moderate’s political sensibility.

Mr. Michel once reminded his fellow House Republicans that “we also have an obligation to the American people” to be “responsible participants in the process.” Talk of obligation and responsibility to the greater public good would quickly become obsolete in the Gingrich era of hyperbolic partisanship.

The problem for Republicans was that playing a “responsible” role appeared to consign them to permanent minority status. For a 40-year span beginning in 1955, Republicans were in a minority in the House and were in the majority for only six years in the Senate. By the early 1990s, even moderate House Republicans felt that the ruling Democrats had grown arrogant and corrupt.

As moderates came to believe that nothing was to be gained from cooperating with Democrats, they became more receptive to Mr. Gingrich’s argument that the way to dislodge the entrenched majority was to polarize the electorate while attacking Congress as an irredeemable and illegitimate institution.

And so the moderates propelled Mr. Gingrich into power. One, William E. Frenzel [ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000380 ] of Minnesota, nominated him for House Republican whip in 1989; Olympia J. Snowe [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/olympia_j_snowe/index.html ] of Maine (later a senator) seconded the nomination. Moderates supported Mr. Gingrich over the more conciliatory candidate of the older conservatives, Edward R. Madigan [ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M000041 ] of Illinois, and Mr. Gingrich carried the New England delegation.

“There’s no question I would not be House Republican whip if activists in the moderate wing had not supported me,” Mr. Gingrich said after his victory. Leading his party to a Congressional majority five years later, Mr. Gingrich did what even Ronald Reagan had been unable to do.

Moderates soon discovered that there were few things more dangerous than getting what you want. Mr. Gingrich quickly succumbed to ideological overreach, particularly when he shut down the government in a bid to squeeze budgetary concessions from President Bill Clinton. The popular reaction against Mr. Gingrich effectively ended his “revolution” before it was a year old.

Moderate Republicans played a significant role in the subsequent negotiations between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton that led to welfare reform in 1996 and balanced budget legislation in 1997. But the moderates were Republican loyalists to a fault. They failed to protest as Mr. Gingrich transformed their party into an ideological faction and set it on its present course of anti-government radicalism.

Mr. Gingrich himself fitfully understood that a political party has to maintain a balance between its governing and its ideological wings: too far in one direction and the party becomes boring, too much a part of the establishment; too far in the other, and it becomes wild and self-destructive. But he couldn’t control the troops on his right flank because their real loyalty lay not with the party, but with the conservative movement.

Even before databases and computers and gerrymander-loving legislatures allowed Republicans to draw safe conservative districts, the true believers enjoyed the support of a vast right-wing infrastructure of outside donors, highly motivated grass-roots supporters, think tanks and media outlets. No such organizational network has existed for the governing wing since the 1960s. There’s no one to keep the radicals in line.

Moderate Republican voters, governors and financial backers will be horrified if the present confrontation leads to a constitutional crisis or global economic meltdown, but they have scant influence over the radicals in the Tea Party caucus. And many of them fear that launching a direct challenge to the radicals would send the party back to 40 years in the political wilderness, particularly as the party’s demographic base continues to shrink. The Republican Party won’t change course until the Gingrich strategy for winning House elections stops working.

Geoffrey Kabaservice is the author of “Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party [ http://www.amazon.com/Rule-Ruin-Moderation-Destruction-Development/dp/0199768404 ].”

© 2013 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/the-moderates-who-lighted-the-fuse.html [with comments]


--


G.O.P. Elders See Liabilities in Shutdown

Graphic
The Republicans Standing Their Ground
Below are 20 of a larger group of conservative House Republicans, many of whom were elected by wide margins, who have led the push to tie the dismantling of President Obama’s health care law to the passage of a budget resolution that would end the government shutdown.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/02/us/politics/the-band-of-republicans-standing-their-ground.html

Graphic
The Back and Forth Over the Shutdown
Since Sept. 20, the Republican House, led by John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the Democratic Senate, led by Harry Reid of Nevada, have lobbed spending bills between their two chambers. They missed the deadline to prevent the government from running out of money at 11:59 p.m. Sept. 30.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/30/us/politics/the-back-and-forth-over-the-shutdown.html?ref=politics [related article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/politics/congress-shutdown-debate.html ]

Video
Government Shutdown Coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/video/playlist/government-shutdown/100000002475711/index.html

By JONATHAN MARTIN
Published: October 3, 2013

WASHINGTON — The hard-line stance of Republican House members on the government shutdown is generating increasing anger among senior Republican officials, who say the small bloc of conservatives is undermining the party and helping President Obama just as the American people appeared to be losing confidence in him.

From statehouses to Capitol Hill, frustration is building and spilling out during closed-door meetings as Republicans press leaders of the effort to block funding for the health care law [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html ] to explain where their strategy is ultimately leading.

“Fighting with the president is one thing,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. “Fighting with the president and losing is another thing. When you’re in the minority you need to look really hard to find the fights you can win.”

The complaints come from fervent opponents of the president’s health care overhaul, who say that the shutdown is overshadowing discussion of the problems associated with the law and ruining any chance for revising it.

“This is a huge distraction,” said Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee. “Instead of that being the conversation, we’re talking about the government shutdown, and the average citizen can’t help but say the Republican Congress isn’t helping.”

Members of Congress from swing areas and Republican governors appear the most vocal. At a meeting with House Republicans in the Capitol on Tuesday, Representative Dave Reichert of Washington pointedly questioned what the end game is for the party, according to someone who attended and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was supposed to be confidential. Mr. Reichert, typically mild-mannered, represents a highly competitive suburban Seattle district.

And on Wednesday at a private luncheon, several Senate Republicans — Dan Coats of Indiana, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire — assailed Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who has led the movement to block funding for the health law.

Ms. Ayotte was especially furious, according to two people present, and waved a printout from a conservative group friendly to Mr. Cruz attacking 25 of his fellow Republican senators for supporting a procedural vote that the group counted as support of the health law.

Ms. Ayotte asked Mr. Cruz to disavow the group’s effort and demanded he explain his strategy. When he did not, several other senators — including Mr. Johnson, Mr. Coats and even Mitch McConnell, the minority leader — joined in the criticism of Mr. Cruz.

“It just started a lynch mob,” said a senator who was present.

Despite the uproar, Mr. Cruz did not offer a plan for how his party could prevail in the shutdown battle and suggested his colleagues were defeatists.

Republican elders worry that the tactics of Mr. Cruz and his allies in the House are reinforcing the party’s image as obstructionist, and benefiting Mr. Obama at a time when his standing with the public is sliding. A New York Times/CBS poll last week found that 49 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s job performance.

“The story people see now is President Obama sinking like a rock for months, and the only thing holding him up are the Republicans,” lamented Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi who previously led the Republican National Committee [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_national_committee/index.html ]. “We have to get to the best resolution we can under the Obama administration, and then focus on some other things.”

The tensions reveal deeper divisions about how to address more fundamental problems facing the party. Nearly a year after a second consecutive and decisive presidential loss, the rebranding effort that almost every top Republican called crucial has been set aside or obscured by the wrangling with Mr. Obama.

That means there has been little progress on issues the party establishment believes are critical to a revival, like an immigration overhaul, or something conservative intellectuals are more eager for, like a populist-oriented economic approach.

“There are certainly opportunity costs to Republicans in the confrontations and crises we’re witnessing,” said Pete Wehner, a former George W. Bush aide and a leading voice for change.

“Even if you don’t lay most of the blame on the G.O.P. [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html ], there’s no question, I think, that the effort to reform and modernize the G.O.P. — and to rally support among Republicans around that effort — is being at a minimum impeded.”

And the spotlight on further dysfunction in Washington undercuts those Republicans who want to make less polarizing figures outside Washington — especially governors — the new face of the party.

“The fight here is important to have — this is an important part of political life,” said former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida at a recent news conference in the capital. “But I do think the emphasis of being against the president’s policies, no matter how principled they are, needs to be only half the story, if not less.”

Mr. Bush cited the accomplishments of three Republican governors and potential presidential candidates — Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey — who he said were offering “a more positive, hopeful, optimistic message.”

Mr. Bush’s comments reflect what has become gospel among many Republican professionals: that the language and images projected by the Washington wing of the party are interfering with efforts to modernize.

In a speech this week to Republican state officials, Ed Gillespie, a former Republican chairman, lamented how members of the party’s Congressional caucus were “always in the position of talking about what they’re against — what they want to block or repeal or defund.”

“And we join them in staunch opposition to the president’s harmful policies — but our party might be better off if we spent more time speaking in positive terms about why we’re against those policies and, more importantly, what we’re for,” said Mr. Gillespie, who is chairman of the group he spoke to, the Republican State Leadership Committee.

The constant focus on Congressional and White House bickering especially annoys Republican governors who feel that the party can take back the White House in 2016 if they nominate one of their own and run not only against the Democrats, but also against Washington dysfunction, much as George W. Bush did in 2000.

“There’s a clear contrast there,” Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada said of the difference between his fellow chief executives and Republicans in Washington. “People are craving leadership and craving problem-solvers.”

Mr. Haslam of Tennessee noted that governors, unlike House members, have to answer to a much broader electorate, one where “the political pendulum swings back really fast.”

“If you’re in a seat that’s 80 percent Republican, you don’t see the pendulum swinging by very fast,” he said.

*

Related

Rattled Congress Seeks Way Out of Its Standoff (October 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html

Boehner Pledges to Avoid Default, Republicans Say (October 4, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/debt-limit-impasse.html

Fallout for G.O.P. Candidate Where Shutdown Pain Is Acute (October 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/concerns-for-gop-candidate-in-virginia-where-pain-from-shutdown-is-acute.html

Staunch Group of Republicans Outflanks House Leaders (October 2, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/politics/a-committed-group-of-conservatives-outflanks-the-house-leadership.html

*

© 2013 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/gop-elders-see-liabilities-in-shutdown.html [with comments]


--


Senate Republican 'Lynch Mob' Rails Against Ted Cruz

By Ashley Alman
Posted: 10/04/2013 12:41 am EDT | Updated: 10/04/2013 11:26 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- A group of Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), railed against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a private luncheon on Wednesday, according to The New York Times, which cited two unnamed people who were present [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/gop-elders-see-liabilities-in-shutdown.html (just above)].

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) presented a Senate Conservatives Fund printout [ http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/post/2288/senate-votes-to-fund-obamacare ] that logged 25 Senate Republicans -- including Ayotte and McConnell -- as voting for cloture on Sunday in what the group said was supporting Obamacare, "betraying their principles" and "giving Democrats the power," the newspaper reported.

When Ayotte asked whether Cruz would repudiate the Senate Conservatives Fund's attack, Cruz responded, "I will not," an attendee told Politico [ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-97753.html (third item in this post)].

At that point, McConnell, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and others joined in lashing Cruz, leader of the anti-Obamacare showdown that spiraled into the government shutdown. "It just started a lynch mob," one senator told the Times.

The clash shows some Republican senators have lost patience with Cruz, who has failed to reveal a strategy to win his goal of defunding Obamacare.

“It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn’t have a strategy -– he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was,” one senator told Politico. “I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch.”

Conservatives outside the Senate have taken swings at Cruz as well. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/grover-norquist-ted-cruz_n_4032186.html ] Cruz "pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away." Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) accused [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/peter-king-ted-cruz_n_4029384.html ] the "Ted Cruz wing" of trying to "hijack" the Republican Party.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/mitch-mcconnell-ted-cruz_n_4041159.html [with embedded video report, and (over 14,000) comments]


--


Boehner Urges G.O.P. Unity in ‘Epic Battle’

Video [embedded]
Boehner: ‘This Isn’t Some Damned Game’: With no new plan on the fourth day of the shutdown, House Speaker John A. Boehner made an angry plea to President Obama for a discussion on his health care law.


From left, Representatives James Lankford, Eric Cantor, the majority leader, and Pete Sessions, with Speaker John A. Boehner.
Drew Angerer for The New York Times

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: October 4, 2013

WASHINGTON — With his troops anxious for a way forward, Speaker John A. Boehner [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_a_boehner/index.html ] began a closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Friday morning with a recitation of letters from local schoolchildren on how they deal with stress.

A shower helps, one child counseled. So does a nap.

But on the matter causing all the Congressional stress, the speaker offered no clue as to how he expected Congress to get out of the dead end it has found itself in, with the government shut for a fourth day and no clear path to raise the federal debt limit [ http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html ] to avoid the nation’s first default. “We are locked in an epic battle,” the speaker told his rank and file, those who attended the meeting said, urging them to “hang tough.”

The overarching problem for the man at the center of the budget fight, say allies and opponents, is that he and his leadership team have no real idea how to resolve the fiscal showdown.

They are only trying to survive another day, Republican strategists say, hoping to maintain unity as long as possible so that when the Republican position collapses, they can capitulate on two issues at once — financing the government and raising the debt ceiling — and head off any internal party backlash. Republican lawmakers say Mr. Boehner has assured them privately that he will not permit a default.

Backers of the speaker say he does not have to fear a coup. His obvious successor, the majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, is so caught up in the current legislative battle that he would probably be washed away with Mr. Boehner in a Tea Party [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html ] putsch, and with no other obvious candidates in waiting, no such uprising is likely.

“I do not believe he’s primarily concerned with saving his speakership. He’s concerned with saving the House Republican Conference,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican House member who advises the current House leadership.

If the speaker were to move on a stopgap spending bill now, without conservative policy priorities attached, it would most likely pass with Republican and Democratic votes. But the ensuing Republican uproar — on and off Capitol Hill — would ensure that there would be no Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling. “It’s common-sense strategy,” one Republican strategist said. “If you’re going to take a bullet, you want to take just one.”

It has been a long time since a House speaker has faced the many challenges confronting Mr. Boehner. On paper, he is the perfect man for the moment, a veteran Congressional institutionalist with a history of working with Democrats on big problems, and someone bruised by the memory of the last government shutdown and the harm it did to his party.

That John Boehner has faded, carried away by the Tea Party current that swept him to power and is now pulling him from the moorings of his past. His troops are badly fractured, with conservatives advocating one strategy and a growing band of pragmatists demanding the opposite.

Aides to Mr. Boehner, however, say the speaker has a clear vision of where he wants to end up in the current crisis, but is unwilling to lay out his goals until he has a Democratic partner with whom to negotiate. Democrats are openly disrespecting his leadership and disregarding his demands. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, suggested again on Friday that Mr. Boehner was putting his speakership over his country.

Even Republican allies say whatever strategy exists seems to be dictated not by the speaker, but by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the hard-line Republican who helped start the “Defund Obamacare” movement.

Asked what the House was doing, Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and a Boehner loyalist, said: “You really have to call Cruz, I’m not even joking about that. That’s really what you have to do, because he’s the one that set up the strategy, he’s the one that got us into this mess, and so we’ve got to know what the next move is.”

Democrats say they simply cannot trust the speaker to deliver. Mr. Reid said in an interview in his office on Friday that Mr. Boehner came to him at the end of July with a proposition: If Senate Democratic leaders could accept a stopgap spending measure in the fall at levels that reflected across-the-board spending cuts, the speaker would refrain from adding extraneous measures that could precipitate a clash.

Mr. Reid was leery, since that level — $988 billion in discretionary spending for the 2014 fiscal year — would be $70 billion less than the Senate-passed budget. “I didn’t like it. I’ve got a couple of tough women to deal with,” he said, referring to Senators Patty Murray of Washington, the chairwoman of the Budget Committee, and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee.

On Sept. 12, in a meeting of the top four Congressional leaders, Mr. Boehner said he was running into problems with a conservative groundswell demanding that a gutting of the health law accompany any spending measure. Mr. Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, suggested a procedural step that would allow the House to vote on a stopgap spending bill with a side provision removing funds from the health care law [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html ] that the Senate could strip out before sending the spending measure to the president.

Again, the speaker agreed. And again, he could not carry through, Mr. Reid said. “If I told him I would do something, I would do that,” the Senate leader said.

At a White House meeting with the president this week, Mr. Boehner twice brought up quiet talks between Ms. Murray and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, as a way to end the impasse with a broad budget deal. The third time, Mr. Reid laughed out loud.

“I couldn’t take it any longer. I said: ‘Stop it. They’ve met a few times and talked about nothing. The meetings were only for you, for show,’ ” Mr. Reid said.

If Mr. Boehner is feeling pressure, he is not showing it, sticking to his longstanding routines. He began most mornings this week as he always does, with a long walk and breakfast at the counter of Pete’s Diner a few blocks from the Capitol.

He has spent his days largely hunkered down inside his speaker’s suite, shuttling between his office and his conference room, meeting with small groups of lawmakers. He talks, he listens, and he tries to buck them up: Hang in there and stick with the team has become something of mantra.

Representative Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican close to Mr. Boehner, said he believed that the speaker would like to see a deal that included a new way of calculating inflation that would slow the growth of federal benefits; a means testing for Medicare [ ], as well as some other Medicare savings; and at least some slight changes to the Affordable Care Act, like a repeal of a medical device tax unpopular with some Democrats.

Mr. Cole said that Mr. Boehner wanted a broader negotiation that would involve current federal spending and the debt limit, one that “would move us towards some sort of — if not grand bargain — then big down payment on our fiscal problems,” Mr. Cole said.

As for Mr. Boehner, on Friday he played down any personal animosity between him and his Democratic adversaries, but did show a flash of temper when he referred to suggestions from the White House that Democrats had the advantage. “This isn’t some damn game,” he said, his voice rising. “The American people don’t want their government shut down, and neither do I.”

*

Related

Shutdown’s Pinch Leaves Governors With Tough Calls (October 5, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/us/with-federal-wallet-closed-states-agonize-over-opening-their-own.html

*

© 2013 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/us/politics/boehner-urges-gop-unity-in-epic-battle.html


--


A Terrible, Tragic Game

By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: October 4, 2013

Speaker John Boehner barked Friday about the government shutdown: “This isn’t some damn game.”

The House leader was responding to an anonymous “senior administration official” who was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579113781436540284.html ], saying: “We are winning. ... It doesn’t really matter to us’ how long the shutdown lasts ‘because what matters is the end result.’ ”

(The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, distanced the administration from the boastful nature of that quote, referring to the president and a budget bill known as a continuing resolution in a tweet: “This is absurd. POTUS wants the shutdown to end NOW. Speaker can do that NOW by putting a clean C.R. to a vote. #JustVote [ https://twitter.com/search?q=%23JustVote&src=hash ]”)

That said, the speaker is wrong once again. This unfortunately is a game. It’s a game that he allowed himself to be pushed into playing and one he can find no easy way out of. It’s a game in which he thought the president would blink. But President Obama is staring straight ahead, wide-eyed like a long-haul trucker at 3 in the morning. This is a game in which the speaker cared more about keeping his job than about keeping the American government running, the people who work for it and those who depend on it.

It is most definitely a game, a terrible, tragic game that House Republicans are playing in the People’s House.

A conversation recorded between the two senators from Kentucky [ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-government-shutdown-97795.html ], Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, expresses as much.

In the conversation, Paul says to McConnell: “I just did CNN, and I just go over and over again: ‘We’re willing to compromise. We’re willing to negotiate.’ I don’t think they’ve poll-tested, ‘We won’t negotiate.’ I think it’s awful for them to say that over and over again.”

McConnell responds: “Yeah, I do too. And I just came back from a two-hour meeting with them. And that was basically the same view privately as it was publicly.”

Paul finishes: “I think if we keep saying, ‘We wanted to defund it; we fought for that, but now we’re willing to compromise on this,’ I think they can’t, we’re going to, I think, well, I know we don’t want to be here, but we’re going to win this, I think.”

McConnell and Paul are doing what every politician in Washington is doing: trying to game out the shutdown, to bend it to their betterment, to outmaneuver the other side in the game of messaging.

And they think they have a winning message: the Democrats refuse to negotiate. They have twisted the president’s narrow argument, that he won’t negotiate over keeping the government open or paying the nation’s bills, into a broader one about global democratic intransigence.

They believe this will work for them because most Americans want both sides to compromise. According to a CBS News poll released Thursday [ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605822/poll-americans-not-happy-about-shutdown-more-blame-gop/ ], Americans want both sides to compromise on the federal budget, with 78 percent wanting Congressional Republicans to compromise and 76 percent wanting the president and the Democrats to do the same.

Americans just want the dysfunction to be fixed. They want the government reopened and the series of manufactured calamities to come to an end.

The thing is, this shutdown is not about the budget. It’s about a vocal and ardent minority demanding a nullification of a law it doesn’t like. This is about the Tea Party’s obsession with repealing Obamacare and the president’s refusing to negotiate with hostage takers.

On this, the American people would appear to be overwhelmingly siding with the president and the Democrats. The CBS News poll found that 72 percent of Americans disapprove of shutting down the government over disagreements about Obamacare. Even among people who disapprove of the law, 59 percent disagree with shutting down the government over it. But there is a partisan split. While more than three-quarters of both Democrats and independents disapprove of the shutdown over Obamacare, Republicans are nearly evenly split on the matter.

And when it comes to blame, Americans spread it around, but they blame Congressional Republicans more than the president and Democrats at a rate of 44 percent to 35 percent.

The Republicans surely must know that they’re on the losing end of the public-relations battle here, so they keep trying to distort the image of what they’ve done, projecting blame and distortion onto the president and Democrats. The Republican House members are trying to create a house of mirrors.

This is a damn game, and the American people are tired of playing it.

© 2013 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/blow-a-terrible-tragic-game.html [with comments]


--


Frankenstein Goes to Congress

By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 4, 2013

Our question for today is: Why don’t the Republicans just throw in the towel? Really, this is not going well for anybody.

Lots of reasons. There’s Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the General Patton of the government shutdown. And people like the Republican in the House who said he and his colleagues “have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” Also, Ted Cruz.

“So many Democrats have invoked my name as the root of all evil in the world,” Cruz complained on the floor of the Senate Friday. This is true. Senate Republicans merely regard him as the root of most of the evil in the world.

But here’s my long-term theory. Over the past few years, Republicans have terrified their most fervent followers about Obamacare in order to disguise the fact that they no longer knew what to say about their old bête noir, entitlements. Now they can’t turn the temperature down.

Let’s review. Not so very long ago, worrying about entitlements was central to Republican identity. Then, they began to notice that the folks at their rallies looked like the audience for “Matlock” reruns. The base was aging, and didn’t want to change Social Security or Medicare. The base didn’t even want to be reminded that Social Security and Medicare were federal programs.

During the last Republican primary debates, Gov. Rick Perry called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Mitt Romney jumped all over him, then raced off to tell a conservative talk show host that if the Republicans nominated someone with Perry’s view on Social Security “we would be obliterated as a party.”

This year, when President Obama proposed a budget that actually did reduce the rate at which Social Security benefits would rise in the future, the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee denounced it as “a shocking attack on seniors.”

People like Paul Ryan still fiddled with Medicare, but only in wonkese that didn’t trickle down to the public. There were vague references to the need to “protect” programs for the elderly. But the party had lost its old rallying cry. Enter health care reform.

Just this week, Rick Perry called Obamacare “a criminal act.” He appears to be gearing up for another presidential run, and you are not going to hear any Ponzi talk this time around. However, he’s so set against the new health care law that he’s refusing to let 1.5 million really poor Texans qualify for federally financed coverage. When Rick Perry has a principle, no sacrifice is too great.

All over the nation, Tea Party politicians have been telling their most fervid constituents that Obamacare will bring the federal government into the nation’s health system, thus wrecking the wonderful coverage they now enjoy with Medicare. Which comes into their homes through the chimney, where it is dropped by free-enterprise storks.

Representative John Culberson of Texas called Obamacare “a violation of our most sacred right as Americans to be left alone.” This was during an interview with Salon, in which Culberson waxed wroth about the whole idea of any government intervention into health care.

The interviewer, Josh Eidelson, asked, “What does that mean for Medicare, then?”

“What does that mean for Medicare? What does that have to do with anything?” Culberson demanded.

So there you are. It’s not easy leading a political movement that believes the federal government is at the core of all our problems while depending heavily on the votes of citizens who get both their retirement money and health care from the federal government.

“Obamacare is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed in Congress. It is the most existential threat to our economy ... since the Great Depression,” said Representative John Fleming of Louisiana. Think about that for a minute. “Most dangerous piece of legislation ever” really does suggest that it’s worse than, say, the Fugitive Slave Act. On the other hand, how many members of the House of Representatives do you hear throw around the word “existential?” So there’s that.

If you were a fervent Tea Party follower, listening to this kind of talk for the last few years, you’d feel pretty confident that this showdown in Washington could only end one way, right?

“Congressmen, this is about shutting down Obamacare,” wrote Erick Erickson in the influential blog RedState. “Democrats keep talking about our refusal to compromise. They don’t realize our compromise is defunding Obamacare. ... Our endgame is to leave the whole thing shut down until the President defunds Obamacare. And if he does not defund Obamacare, we leave the whole thing shut down.”

They’ve created a monster. And now the rest of the country is turning into peasants with torches, storming their castle.

© 2013 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/collins-frankenstein-goes-to-congress.html [with comments]


--


Republican Congressman Blasts Obama For 'Violent Rhetoric' During Capitol Lockdown


10/03/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/tim-griffin-capitol-lockdown-tweet_n_4039052.html [with embedded video report, and comments]


--


Capitol Police Protecting Congress In Shooting Aren't Getting Paid, Thanks To Congress
10/04/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/capitol-police-congress-pay_n_4040719.html [with embedded video report, and comments]


--


Fox's Varney On Furloughed Federal Employees: "I Want To Punish These People"

October 3, 2013
[...]
HOWELL: Do you think that federal workers, when this ends, are deserving of their back pay or not?
VARNEY: That is a loaded question isn't it? You want my opinion? This is President Obama's shutdown. He is responsible for shutting this thing down; he's taken an entirely political decision here. No, I don't think they should get their back pay, frankly, I really don't. I'm sick and tired of a massive, bloated federal bureaucracy living on our backs, and taking money out of us, a lot more money than most of us earn in the private sector, then getting a furlough, and then getting their money back at the end of it. Sorry, I'm not for that. I want to punish these people. Sorry to say that, but that's what I want to do.
[...]
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/03/foxs-varney-on-furloughed-federal-employees-i-w/196261 [with embedded video, and comments; emphasis in original]


--


House Democrats Unveil Discharge Petition To Force End To Shutdown

By Jennifer Bendery
Posted: 10/04/2013 1:49 pm EDT | Updated: 10/04/2013 6:03 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats announced Friday that they will try to force the House to vote on a measure to fully fund the government -- and end the shutdown -- with a procedural motion known as a discharge petition.

Democrats unveiled their plan at a Friday afternoon press conference. Their resolution [ http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/DemRes.pdf ] would fund the government through Nov. 15 at the same levels as the Senate-passed continuing resolution. And, like the Senate bill, there would be no strings attached related to delaying or defunding Obamacare.

The effort, led by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and George Miller (D-Calif.), has little chance of succeeding. The process can be time-consuming and it requires members of the majority party -- in this case, Republicans -- to buck their party leaders and sign a petition with the minority to force a bill to the floor. But it's one of the few things Democrats can do as the minority to try to force action.

If all 200 Democrats sign the petition, 18 Republicans would have to join them in order to hit 218 signatures, the magic number needed to move forward with the petition. Democrats already know there are at least 21 Republicans [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/house-republicans-clean-cr_n_4024755.html ] who would support a "clean" government funding bill, with no strings attached. But declaring support for such a bill and signing a petition to force it to the House floor, against the will of House GOP leaders, are two entirely different things.

During Friday's press event, Miller exuded confidence about Democrats' ability to round up the votes.

"We expect we can get them all in one day," he said.

But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), also at the event, acknowledged what may keep Republicans from signing on: fear of retribution from the tea party, namely in the form of a primary challenger in the 2014 elections.

"I think the fear factor on the Republican side is very high," Hoyer said. "I have very good relationships with most of the Republican side of the aisle ... They tell me that their guys are being threatened if they do anything like [supporting a clean funding bill]."

Under the Democrats' plan, the soonest they could force a vote on a clean government funding bill is Oct. 14. The first step of the process involves filing their resolution now, on Oct. 4, and having it referred to the House Rules Committee. Democrats then have to wait for seven days of inaction by the committee before they can do anything else. That brings them to Oct. 11.

Assuming the committee doesn't take up their resolution, Democrats will file their discharge petition and start collecting signatures. Once they hit 218, if they do, they can make a motion on the House floor to "discharge" their resolution from the committee for immediate House consideration. The earliest that could happen is Oct. 14.

From there, the House would have to take an up-or-down vote on the resolution. Assuming it passes with the support of everyone who signed the discharge petition, and possibly some others, the resolution would head to the Senate, where it would sail to passage and head to President Barack Obama's desk to become law, ending the shutdown.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/discharge-petition-government-shutdown_n_4044967.html [with embedded video report, and (over 25,000) comments]


--


Top Republican Calls For Replacing Obamacare With Obamacare


[ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVlwwmNCcAEbCO5.jpg:large (via https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa/status/385463223480098816 / https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa/status/385463223480098816/photo/1 )]

Josh Barro
Oct. 2, 2013, 3:37 PM

Republicans often face criticism opposing Obamacare but having no plan to replace it.

So Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has been tweeting [ https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa/status/385463223480098816 ] about his replacement proposal: Let every American participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits program.

"Federal employees have long enjoyed high-quality, affordable health care benefits through this free market, consumer based system," says Issa.

I'm not exactly sure what Issa means when he calls FEHBP a "free market" system. The system does set up a marketplace where private health insurers offer plans that have to meet certain specifications, and then individuals choose the plans they like best.

That's also true of the Obamacare exchanges, which Republicans do not tend to think are very "free market."

In fact, FEHBP is similar to the Obamacare exchanges in a lot of ways.

- If insurers want to participate in the FEHBP, they can't exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, just like Obamacare.

- They have to accept applicants "without regard to age, race, sex, health status, or hazardous nature of employment." This is called guaranteed issue, and it's just like Obamacare.

- They have to charge all applicants the same premium for a given plan. This is called community rating, and it's more restrictive of insurers than Obamacare, which allows for substantial premium variation based on age.

The key way that FEHBP differs from Obamacare now is that only federal employees can participate in it. Those federal workers have 75% of their plan premiums paid by the federal government, and their own 25% contribution is deductible on their federal tax return.

I asked Issa's office what financial support he would propose to help non-government workers buy FEHBP plans and haven't heard back yet. If he's going to heavily subsidize those purchases, then his plan will really look a lot like Obamacare.

If he's not, then there's a significant problem: A lot of people won't be able to afford to buy FEHBP plans. The cheapest plan available where I live, a high-deductible plan, is $5,000 a year for single coverage or $10,900 for family coverage. That's accessible for people with high incomes and some with middle incomes, but many people who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid will find that out of reach.

And besides affordability, there is the issue of adverse selection. If you require pre-existing condition coverage and you impose guaranteed issue and community rating, insurance plans are going to be a lot more attractive to sick people than healthy ones. If healthy people choose not to buy insurance, average costs per plan participant will rise, driving up premiums, and causing even more people to choose not to buy.

That could lead to an "insurance death spiral," where premiums are very high and the FEHBP's participant pool ends up being just very sick people. That's what's happened in New York State, where community rating and guaranteed issue have made insurance premiums so high that less than 0.1% of residents get insurance through the individual coverage market.

There are two ways to prevent a death spiral. One is to reward people for buying insurance, as Obamacare does with subsidies, and as the federal government does now by paying 75% of employee FEHBP premiums. The other is to punish people for not buying insurance, as Obamacare does with the individual mandate.

Whatever approach Issa takes to preventing a death spiral in his FEHBP-for-all plan is likely to make it look even more like Obamacare.

This illustrates why Republicans have had so much trouble coming up with a "replacement" for Obamacare. When you take a private health insurance market and try to fix the problems with it, like sick people not being able to get covered, you end up layering on rules that are similar to the ones in Obamacare, for the same reasons that Obamacare's drafters imposed them.

Copyright © 2013 Business Insider, Inc. (emphasis in original)

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-republican-calls-for-replacing-obamacare-with-obamacare-2013-10 [with comments]


--


Obamacare-hating voters have been suckered by right-wing spin

October 3, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-obamacare-hating-voters-20131002,0,2032725.story [with comments]


--


A Population Betrayed

Editorial
Published: October 3, 2013

It is outrageous that millions of the poorest people in the country will be denied health insurance because of decisions made mostly by Republican governors and legislators. These people will neither qualify for their state’s Medicaid program for the poor nor for subsidized coverage on new insurance exchanges that are being established in every state by the health care reform law.

Their plight is a result of the Supreme Court’s decision last year that struck down the reform law’s mandatory expansion of Medicaid and made expansion optional. Every state in the Deep South except Arkansas has rejected expansion, as have Republican-led states elsewhere. These 26 states would rather turn down incredibly generous federal funds that would finance 100 percent of the expansion costs for three years and at least 90 percent thereafter than offer a helping hand to their most vulnerable residents.

As Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff reported in The Times on Thursday [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?pagewanted=all ], two-thirds of the country’s poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers and more than half of the uninsured low-wage workers live in those states. The reform law originally sought to help poor and middle-income people through two parallel mechanisms. One was a mandatory expansion of Medicaid (which in most states cover primarily children and their parents with incomes well below the poverty level) to cover childless adults and to help people with income levels above the poverty line. Those with slightly higher incomes would be eligible for federal subsidies to buy private policies on the new insurance exchanges.

That approach fell apart when 26 states decided not to expand Medicaid, at least for now. There is no provision in the law to provide health insurance subsidies for anyone below the poverty line because those people are supposed to be covered by Medicaid.

The Times report, based on an analysis of census data, found that eight million Americans who are impoverished and uninsured will be ineligible for help of either kind. To add to the insanity, people whose incomes initially qualify them for subsidies on the exchanges could — if their income fell because they lost a job — end up with no coverage at all.

There are no easy solutions to the difficulties wrought by the Supreme Court decision and the callousness of state officials who seized on that opening to victimize the poor.

States like New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee that are still flirting with the idea of expansion should do the right thing and expand. States that have adamantly refused to expand should relent and take the generous federal funds. And if Congressional Republicans ever give up on their obsession to destroy the health reform law, Congress could surely find ways to make certain that the people most in need of help get it.

*

Related

Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law (October 3, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/a-population-betrayed.html

*

© 2013 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/a-population-betrayed.html [with comments]


--


Have They No Shame?

By Sally Steenland [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-steenland/ ]
Director, the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, Center for American Progress
Posted: 10/02/2013 11:33 am

Two weeks ago, Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html ] that slashed $40 billion in food assistance to men, women, and children in need. Soon after, they refused to approve a spending bill to keep the government operating unless the bill contained provisions to cripple the Affordable Care Act, a law that will provide health care to more than 25 million uninsured Americans.

Democrats did not cave in to these demands, and the government was forced to shut down all nonessential services at 12:01 a.m. yesterday. Because of the shutdown, nearly 9 million [ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/30/2701131/shutdown-wic/ ] low-income mothers and their infants stand to lose essential benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, which provides money for baby formula and food.

Modern Republicans' callousness and willingness to overburden the poor evokes another act of state villainy -- one that is especially pertinent because Republican leaders so often invoke the Bible. The suffering that the American people are forced to endure because of the GOP leadership's actions calls to mind the Israelites in Egypt under the unjust rule of Pharaoh. It was before the Exodus, and Pharaoh had forced them into hard labor making bricks. Despite long hours of backbreaking work, the Israelites were barely able to meet the required daily quota. Then, Pharaoh made their lives even harder, ordering their supervisors to stop supplying them with straw, a basic ingredient in making bricks. Instead, the Israelites had to gather their own straw wherever they could find it and still meet their daily quota.

It was an impossible task, but Pharaoh pretended otherwise. While overburdening the Israelites so they wouldn't be able to listen to Moses talk about uprising, he complained about their idleness and had them beaten.

Turn the clock ahead 3,000 years, and you'll find a swarm of modern-day Pharaohs in Washington visiting cruel punishments on innocent people. When it comes to denying food assistance, some of them proclaim falsehoods with the whip in their hands. Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN) and other Republicans [ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/25/2677421/how-house-republicans-are-preaching-a-false-gospel-about-food-stamps/ ] even had the gall to quote the Bible [ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/23/2053081/congressmans-misuse-of-bible-verse-belies-bad-theology-and-ideo ] in defending cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, citing 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."

Aside from the fact that Rep. Fincher and his faux-moralist buddies completely misinterpreted [id.] this scripture passage, they are glaringly ignorant of the actual work status of millions of SNAP recipients. About 45 percent of those who get SNAP benefits have earnings. Furthermore, Republican insistence on work requirements for SNAP recipients is disturbingly out of touch with a postrecession America in which every job opening [ http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/18/cutting-food-stamps-an-angry-nun-gives-the-gop-an-earful/ ] has several people fighting for it -- and in which the gains from the economic recovery went to the top 20 percent [id.] of people.

Rep. Fincher and his colleagues should start reading the news. They would learn about Americans who hold two jobs [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/nyregion/in-new-york-having-a-job-or-2-doesnt-mean-having-a-home.html?pagewanted=all ] and still live in homeless shelters because of low pay and the lack of affordable housing. They would discover how difficult it is to survive on a food budget of $4.50 per day [ http://frac.org/initiatives/snapfood-stamp-challenges/ ], the SNAP allotment. And they might realize that slashing nutrition assistance for millions of Americans is the modern-day equivalent of forcing a vulnerable population to make bricks without straw.

Or they might not.

It turns out that self-righteousness and hypocrisy go hand in hand with this crew--particularly with Rep. Fincher, who personally collected $3.48 million [ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/21/2042831/congressman-who-gets-millions-in-farm-subsidies-denounces-foo ] in taxpayer farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012. In 2012 alone, Fincher received $70,000 of our tax dollars, an amount 44 times greater than the annual SNAP benefit of about $1,586 in his home state of Tennessee.

As for conservatives' oft-cited argument that the Bible tells us to give to the poor through charitable programs rather than the federal government, the truth is that many charities -- such as Catholic Charities USA and others that conservatives hold up as beacons -- get a significant amount of their funding from the government. Catholic Charities USA [ http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/14/charity-09_Catholic-Charities-USA_CH0030.html ], for instance, gets almost 70 percent of its operating budget from federal programs.

Another inconvenient truth [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/want-to-cut-food-stamp-co_b_3948576.html ]: Nearly 9 million [ http://www.usda.gov/fundinglapse.htm ] Americans work full time but earn such low wages that they qualify for SNAP assistance. The problem could be fixed by raising the minimum wage to a living wage, enabling workers to earn enough to feed their families. Most conservatives in Congress, however, oppose raising the minimum wage, falsely claiming that it is a job killer [ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-02/business/ct-biz-0802-wage-sidebar-20130802_1_minimum-wage-job-killer-consumer-spending ]. But you can't have it both ways. If you refuse to pay workers a living wage, then you need to provide them with assistance programs such as SNAP so they can put food on the table.

When Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to slash SNAP assistance two weeks ago -- and when they shut down the government yesterday and denied food to low-income mothers and infants -- they were Pharaohs taking away the straw. Here's a Bible verse for them from Jeremiah 6:15 [ http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/6-15.htm ]: "Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush."

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-steenland/have-they-no-shame_b_4029668.html [with comments]


--


"Love Your Neighbor as Yourself": Failing Grade for Religious America



By Bernard Starr
Posted: 10/03/2013 12:07 pm

A 2012 University of Chicago study reveals that the U.S is among the five most religious nations [ http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/04/us_ranked_5th_m.html ]. How does that play out?

Listen to sermons throughout religious America and you are likely to hear variations on the lofty principle featured in both the Old and New Testaments [ http://biblehub.com/mark/12-31.htm ]: "Love your neighbor as yourself." But as we well know talk can be cheap. Perhaps that's why the Epistle of James calls for action: "Faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:14). And Judaism mandates "mitzvahs" (good deeds [ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mitzvot.html ]).

Let's take a look at how our neighbors across America are doing and how we are treating them in 2013.

• "U.S. Wealth Is Now the Most Concentrated at the Top Since 1916 [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/wealth-concentration_b_4002539.html ]."

And Congressional Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html ].

• Distribution of Wealth in America



And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• "400 Richest Americans Are Worth More Than the GDP of Canada or Mexico [ http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18198-400-richest-americans-worth-more-than-gdp-of-canada-or-mexico ]."

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• Eighty percent of Americans share only seven percent of all the money in America

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• 46.2 million Americans (15.0 percent) live in poverty [ http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx ].

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• 10.4 million Americans living in poverty are the "working poor [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/12/heres-why-10-4-million-american-workers-are-still-in-poverty/ ]."

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• 16.1 million (21.9 percent) of children under the age of 18 live in poverty.

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• The poverty rate for U.S. children is the highest in the Western world [ http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sociology-comprehensive-edition/s11-04-economic-inequality-and-povert.html ].

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• 14.9 percent of households (17.9 million households) are food insecure [ http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx ].

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in the food stamps.

• 4.8 million seniors (over age 60), or 8.4% of all seniors were food insecure.

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• 1 in 6 Americans live on incomes that put them at risk for hunger [ http://moveforhunger.org/hunger-and-homelessness/?gclid=CPDbocyT7LkCFYuk4AodOBgALA#homeless ].

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• Over 14 million American children rely on food banks for assistance.

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• Over 640,000 people experience homelessness on any given night [id.] in the US.

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• More than 1.6 million children experience homelessness in America [ http://www.familyhomelessness.org/children.php?p=ts ] each year.

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• About 62,000 or 13 percent of all homeless persons are veterans.

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

• "American Workers: Hanging on by the Skin of Their Teeth [ http://www.opednews.com/articles/American-Workers-Hanging-by-Mike-Whitney-American-Capitalism_Bloomberg_Economic_Jobs-130928-178.html ]."

And House Republicans pass $40 billion cuts in food stamps.

Wealth inequality is widening, the rich are richer than ever, corporate cash levels are at an all time high [ http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/financial-services-regulation-458/topics/corporate-cash-levels-spike-all ], poverty is increasing, hunger is on the rise, many working poor live in shelters, homelessness is rampant--and what is Congress' response: Cut $40 billion from the food stamp program.

I'm glad we are a religious nation.

Bernard Starr [ http://www.bernardstarr.com/ ] is a psychologist, college professor and journalist. He is the author of Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew [ http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Uncensored-Restoring-Authentic-ebook/dp/B00B1S36E2 ].

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/love-your-neighbor-as-youself_b_4030043.html [with comments]


--


Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania GOP Governor, Compares Gay Marriage To Incest

By MARK SCOLFORO
10/04/13 12:44 PM ET EDT

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett compared the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister during an appearance on a Friday morning TV news show, a remark that was quickly condemned by advocates involved in the state's ongoing battle over whether to allow gays to wed.

Corbett was on WHP-TV in Harrisburg when an anchor asked about a statement his lawyers made in a recent court filing, comparing the marriage of gay couples to the marriage of children because neither can legally wed in the state.

"It was an inappropriate analogy, you know," Corbett said. "I think a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don't you?"

Pennsylvania is the only state in the Northeast that allows neither gay marriage nor civil unions. Its ban on same-sex marriage is being challenged in federal and state courts.

Mark Aronchick, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the pending federal case, called Corbett's remarks "insensitive, insulting and plainly wrong."

"In other words, some kind of incestuous relationship," Aronchick said. "He's just out of touch on this one. Gay people marry for the same reasons straight people do — to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family."

Later Friday, Corbett issued a statement saying his "words were not intended to offend anyone" and apologizing if they did. His office said the interview was taped Monday.

"I explained that current Pennsylvania statute delineates categories of individuals unable to obtain a marriage license," he said. "As an example, I cited siblings as one such category, which is clearly defined in state law. My intent was to provide an example of these categories."

He said the legal status of same-sex marriage will be decided with "respect and compassion shown to all sides."

Ted Martin of Equality Pennsylvania, which advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, called the governor's remarks "shocking and hurtful."

Corbett, a former federal prosecutor and two-term state attorney general, also said he does not think such a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage belongs in federal court.

"The Supreme Court left it up to the states to determine under their laws as to what is and isn't a marriage," Corbett said. "The federal court shouldn't even be involved in this. But if they say they are, then they're going to make a determination whether the state has the right to determine that a marriage is only between a man and a woman and not between two individuals of the same sex."

Corbett's attorneys included a reference to children in a legal brief in August involving same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. In the court filing opposing allowing same-sex couples to intervene in the state's lawsuit to bar a suburban Philadelphia county from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the lawyers made an analogy to a pair of 12-year-olds, saying if the children were issued a marriage license and tried to defend it in court, they wouldn't be taken seriously because the license was never valid.

Corbett later rejected that analogy, saying the case revolved around the question of whether a public official had "the authority to disregard state law based on his own personal legal opinion about the constitutionality of a statute."

A state judge sided with Corbett in that case, ordering the clerk to stop issuing the licenses.

A hearing on the federal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban is scheduled for Wednesday in Harrisburg.

Associated Press writers Marc Levy in Harrisburg and Ron Todt in Philadelphia contributed.

© 2013 Associated Press

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/tom-corbett-gay-marriage-incest_n_4043202.html [with embedded video report, and comments]


--


Back in Black - Barilla Pasta
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Wednesday October 2, 2013
Pasta giant Barilla won't portray a gay family for its commercials, but Lewis Black isn't buying the whole family values argument. (04:12)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-2-2013/back-in-black---barilla-pasta [with comments]


--


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92589928 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92596262 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92592882 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92597708 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92599723 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92601301 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92601797 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92603501 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92603977 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92609085 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92609425 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92611017 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92611751 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92616096 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92622471 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92634475 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92619732 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92619738 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92622459 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92625896 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92626015 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92626543 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92628349 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92628527 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92628510 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92631597 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92632659 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92634425 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92635777 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92636298 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92636375 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92638717 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92638829 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92638859 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92638923 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92646105 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92646130 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92648330 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92648957 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92649959 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92650101 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92650371 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92651314 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92653454 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92653679 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92654093 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92655410 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92656117 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92657375 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92660376 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92660714 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92660951 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92661007 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92662176 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663038 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663187 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663381 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663418 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663556 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663774 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664365 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664385 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664407 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664426 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664440 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664474 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92664506 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92665285 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92663495 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92655834 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92665365 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92665554 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92666946 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92670253 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92678497 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92680295 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92681828 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92681909 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92682000 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92688455 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92691180 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92696364 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92699327 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92702683 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92702861 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92702863 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92703477 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92706079 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92706906 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92707179 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92710121 (and any future following)