
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) told Politico, “I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we’re serious.” (Of course, any member of Congress who would say something like that is by definition NOT serious).
GOP officials said more than half of their members are prepared to allow default unless Obama agrees to dramatic cuts he has repeatedly said he opposes. Many more members, including some party leaders, are prepared to shut down the government to make their point. House Speaker John Boehner “may need a shutdown just to get it out of their system,” said a top GOP leadership adviser. “We might need to do that for member-management purposes — so they have an endgame and can show their constituents they’re fighting.”
…“For too long, the pitch was, we’ll deal with it next time,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a conservative from Utah. He said GOP lawmakers are prepared to shut things down or even default if Obama doesn’t bend on spending. “No one wants to default, but we are not going to continue to give the president a limitless credit card.”
Crazy as it sounds, many Republicans actually believe that a government shutdown is an acceptable course of action. You know what? Let them shut it down and let them pay the price. It’s not worth having a two-party system if one party is always trying to sabotage our country.
UPDATE: David Kurtz on TPM:
It’s increasingly looking like a government shutdown is the GOP’s fallback position on the debt ceiling fight. If a government default is too risky politically and economically, then a government shutdown still get Republicans a genuine primal scream moment, with arguably less severe consequences to the economy. As for the political consequences of a shutdown, Republicans seem more focused on the internal party politics involved than the larger body politic.
UPDATE: FDL’s Jon Walker:
Obama doesn’t want to get around the debt ceiling, he wants to beat the Republicans on it. Obama seems to believe he can win at a game of chicken, despite his rather abysmal track record so far.



#1 by Nathan Erkkila on January 14, 2013 - 10:35 am
I said this before and I’ll say it again. It is their seat that is on the line, Not Obama’s. It’s too bad that they are so delusional that they think the country is on their side when they suffered a big defeat in November and that the a strong majority despise them. I don’t even thing gerrymandering will help them in the midterm if they continue to be this stupid.
#2 by cav on January 14, 2013 - 10:40 am
Vewy, vewy sewious.
Are we still operating on the principle that Up is Down.
Shut down = Shut up!
#3 by cav on January 14, 2013 - 1:46 pm
The political elite, including the president, and the courtier press that services the elite, all seem to define the economy through the deficit.
The very deficit they didn’t give a shit about when Bush and Cheney were in charge.
#4 by Larry Bergan on January 14, 2013 - 5:12 pm
Richard:
Please tell me that picture is from a while back. The baggers aren’t out on the streets again, are they?
#5 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 10:06 am
It’s an old picture. I thought it illustrated the kind of “serious” people who want to shut down the government.
#6 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 10:53 am
The silliest part of this whole thing is that Republicans still refuse to say what budget cuts they want.
#7 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 11:46 am
The silliest part of the whole thing is that the Obama administration is saying exactly the same thing that they criticize the Republicans for saying:
“the fiscal position gradually deteriorates mainly because of
the aging of the population and the high continuing cost
of the Government’s health programs.”
“an aging population and a continued high level
of health costs will pose serious long-term budget problems.
Under current policies, Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security are projected to absorb a much larger
share of Federal resources than in the past, limiting what
the Government can do in other areas.”
“Population aging also poses a serious long-run budgetary
challenge. Because of lower expected fertility and
improved longevity, the Social Security actuaries project
that under current law in which the normal retirement
age rises to 67, the ratio of workers to Social Security
beneficiaries will fall from around 2.9 currently to a little
over 2 by the time most of the baby boomers have retired.
From that point forward, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries
is expected to continue to decline slowly. With fewer
workers to pay the taxes needed to support the retired
population, budgetary pressures will steadily mount and
without reforms, trust fund exhaustion is projected by the
Social Security Trustees to occur in 2036. The country
also faces the challenge of reforming the tax code to make
it fairer and simpler and to provide sufficient revenue to
meet long-run commitments. Resolving the long-run fiscal
challenge will require a comprehensive approach, one
that restrains spending growth but also addresses the
sufficiency of the tax code.”
The President’s Budget 2013
#8 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 12:50 pm
President Obama is determined to cut Social Security and Medicare because he thinks that’s what “serious people” do in Washington. Instead, he ought to find a way to reduce health care costs and raise the revenues needed for the long-term viability of our social safety net programs.
The alternative is the right-wing vision of an America without a middle class, consisting of the comfortable rich and the desperate poor.
#9 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 12:57 pm
I thought he already did what you wanted?
“every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health-care costs are in this bill.”
Barack Hussein Obama
#10 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 1:09 pm
I actually agree with you about social security. We should find a way to fund it indefinitely. But it does matter “how” we do this. First we need to be honest about the math and the accounting behind it. All the discussions on this play games with words and games with accounting and games with actuarial net present value of liabilities, etc.
#11 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 1:22 pm
brewski–
You know very well I have never supported the ACA. It doesn’t do enough to bring down costs, and without a public option it’s tilted in favor of the for-profit private health insurance industry.
#12 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 4:11 pm
brewski–
You didn’t provide a source for your alleged quote. When I Google it, it comes up with GOP.com, NewsMax, Free Republic, WSJ and other right-wing sites. Maybe President Obama said that, but you’ll have to find a credible source for the quote.
#13 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 4:50 pm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-house-democratic-congress
This isn’t a credible source, but it will have to suffice.
#14 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 5:09 pm
Thanks. That quote was deliberately taken out of context, of course, like the “you didn’t build that” quote that Romney made into the theme of the GOP convention.
As you can see, the President was not claiming (falsely) that everything was included, despite the lack of a public option. In context, the quote referred to small measures like reducing medical over-billing.
#15 by cav on January 15, 2013 - 5:46 pm
Good catch Mr. Warnick.
#16 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 5:49 pm
Wrong.
You are omitting key words in your statements.
Yes, it did not include everything he wanted. But everything he wanted includes lots of things which have nothing to do with lowering costs. So you are misrepresenting what he said is not in it and what he did say is in it.
So, to spoon feed it for you. It does not include all non-cost savings related idea.
But he did say ““every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health-care costs are in this bill.”
That is limited to only cost savings ideas and not all ideas.
Sorry, but he lied. Admit it.
#17 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 5:52 pm
Bad catch Mr. Cav.
This is why I say I am always right. Because I am and I have whitehouse.gov to prove it for me.
#18 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 6:47 pm
You have to take into account President Obama’s audience: House Dems.
The House Dems knew darn well that the public option wasn’t in the bill, because they passed the earlier version that DID have the public option. Then it was taken out of the Senate version by Max Baucus. Even though a majority of Senators were on record advocating the public option, it was never brought to the floor for a vote.
Obama forced progressives to vote for a Republican health care bill, which in the end passed the House of Representatives with zero Republican votes. Why would he risk pissing off any House Dems just before the final vote?
Obama was referring to small-bore cost-containment measures in the ACA, because everybody knows the bill didn’t have anything in it the insurance industry could not live with.
#19 by brewski on January 15, 2013 - 8:19 pm
I don’t care who his audience was.
He said “every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health-care costs are in this bill.”
There is no out of context. Your post above completely misstates what he said.
He lied. You know it, I know it, and everyone who doesn’t work for MSNBC, Media Matters, the Chicago thuggery machine, and the West Wing knows it.
#20 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2013 - 9:01 pm
It doesn’t make sense to lie to members of Congress about something they know. They knew the public option wasn’t in the bill. Everybody knew.
#21 by cav on January 15, 2013 - 9:05 pm
When Congress struck a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, it also dealt a quiet blow to President Obama’s health overhaul: The new law killed a multibillion-dollar program meant to boost health insurance competition by funding nonprofit health plans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/15/co-ops-were-supposed-to-replace-the-public-option-now-they-are-dead/
#22 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 16, 2013 - 12:50 am
The coop’s where a sad joke, I don’t feel the least bit bad about those getting cut.
Next step of reform, should be to federalize medicaid by rolling it into medicare, and opening a medicare based public option anyone can buy into.
We can pay for this, with money to spare for the deficit, by allowing medicare drug negotiation, and the savings from the public option itself.
With the advent of ACO’s and medicare alternative compensation programs, those small changes would be a huge improvement.
#23 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 8:10 am
Thanks Ronald. As you may suspect, as the debates proceed into the arcane minutea, I, not being an economist, do occasionally find myself, shall we just say…in over my head?!
#24 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 8:10 am
.
#25 by cav on January 16, 2013 - 8:29 am
Tangential, and possibly vindictive, but shouldn’t we be trying to find a way to make pension funds start demanding that corporations look to outsource top management as the salaries and bonuses of current management is robbing the stockholders.
#26 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 16, 2013 - 9:27 am
Moving government pension funds to operate more like the Sovereign wealth funds of Europe, that is purposefully investing with the intent of gaining enough control over a company to move their operations to where ever that fund is based.
If matched up with clever use of subsidies, such as what Germany has done with photovoltaic’s, and silicon ingots/wafers, could easily push up the economies of the States involved.
CA’s pension fund is well over $600 billion dollars for example, combine cleaver management with the $23 billion or so in subsides CA hands out every year to corps, compensate the pension fund with income ta revenue for the slightly lower return rate from targeted investing and you have a winner, mind you income tax revenue would be up under this model due to this model.
Rinse repeat in every big State.
#27 by brewski on January 16, 2013 - 9:47 am
“It doesn’t make sense to lie to members of Congress about something they know. They knew the public option wasn’t in the bill. Everybody knew.”
So what you are saying is that if someone lies to a room full of professional liars, then it doesn’t really count as a lie?
What ever your excuse is, Obama said ““every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health-care costs are in this bill.”
Your previous point about other things not being in the bill is totally irrelevant.
He lied. You know it and I know it and everyone who doesn’t work for MSNBC knows it.
#28 by brewski on January 16, 2013 - 10:14 am
RDH,
The states have over $2 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. Never mind the Federal pension plans’ unfunded liabilities. So your suggestion of managing the government pension plans like sovereign wealth funds doesn’t solve this problem at all. In fact, your suggestion that the rate of return on their investment would be lower would only make this problem worse.
The German solar FIT’s are as high as 24 euros per kWh. That is about 31 cents per kWh. So what you are saying is that you are willing to have your personal electricity bill triple as part of your plan. Really? You think Obama or any other liberal is going to run on the platform of tripling everyone’s electricity bill?
#29 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 17, 2013 - 5:40 am
Never said it had to be solar cells, I just pointed that out as an example.
And Germany collects a lot of taxes from the people working for those solar cell manufacturers. And all of the requisite industry, silicon ingots/wafers, chip fabrication in general(lots of chip makers have plants in Dresden, Germany);
“That is about 31 cents per kWh.”
There are more then enough locations that pay that much during peak hours, And if the coal industry wasn’t able to cost shift the environmental problems onto the public dime solar would look even better.
But as I said it doesn’t have to be solar, could be nuclear, or not energy related at all. Or even a single investment, $600 billion dollars, or more likely some smaller chunk of that in order to maintain diversity, But even $100 billion from CA’s pension fund invested right, could bring alot of jobs to that State.
So long as the fund was investing in things that brings jobs to our shores, it would benefit indirectly. We only need to find a way to bring some of that indirect benefit into the pension fund.
Increasing the employment level and wages would greatly improve tax revenue.
#30 by brewski on January 17, 2013 - 10:26 am
So you are willing to have your electricity bill triple. I am waiting for the first liberal to run on that platform.
#31 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 10:58 am
But, it will be more than made up for in the savings derived from diminution of petroleum consumed by the military as they redirect their attention sans pursuit of petroleum. Not to mention the savings derived from not having to pay the contractor class (read; Leeches)
See how easy that was?
#32 by brewski on January 17, 2013 - 11:06 am
Still waiting for any liberal to run on that platform.
#33 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2013 - 1:23 pm
brewski–
Can we count on you to support H.R. 261, the “Public Option Deficit Reduction Act”?
#34 by brewski on January 17, 2013 - 2:52 pm
That sort of stuff is small ball.
This is where the real money is:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1205901
One of my former professors is a signatory on it.
#35 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 3:19 pm
“Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001.”
Stiglitz and Bilmes,
And these wars were pursued without raising taxes. Indeed, with tax cuts for the rich thrown in at the same time, during the Bush years.
#36 by brewski on January 17, 2013 - 5:02 pm
Yes, the tax code has been doing a good job of not collecting revenue for a long time now, especially when the rest of the world reformed their tax codes and we did nothing or worse. We could easily collect far more in revenue the way they have in Canada, Denmark and other countries where they actually understand these things. The later Bush years actually collected about the same percentage in revenue as in the first Clinton term. The early Bush years were hurt a lot by the post-dot-com crash, post 9/11 crash, as well as the tax code changes. And Bush was a liberal when it came to spending. He never met a congressional earmark he didn’t like. That’s what he thought was being a compassionate conservative. Conservatives have correctly criticized him a lot for that and did so at the time.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2003/06/13/bushs_spending_binges/page/full/
#37 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 5:45 pm
And wasn’t there some sort of prescription drug shenanigans where John Boehner passed out checks on the House floor for their successful attempt to massively rip-off the coffers?
No. That was distribution of tobacco lobby Money. The Medicare prescription drug benefit was to cost more than $1.2 trillion over the following decade. A much higher price tag by FAR than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003.
A small potato here, a small potato there, pretty soon we’re talking about REAL spuds!
#38 by cav on January 17, 2013 - 5:55 pm
But feminists, hippies, Grandmas, and sociamalists all destroyed America.
#39 by Larry Bergan on January 17, 2013 - 8:13 pm
Tripling my electric bill would be about the same I’m paying for gas in the winter, so it’s not like something I don’t do every year.
I’d consider it, especially since we could bring the boys and girls home and have electric cars.
#40 by Larry Bergan on January 17, 2013 - 8:23 pm
With all this fracking, you’d expect to see lower gas bills for your furnace this year, wouldn’t you? Everything seems rigged.
#41 by McNeil Hughes on January 18, 2013 - 6:26 am
Guess what Larry? obama shut down the federal study on the effects of fracking on the environment, How do you like him now?
The CEO of Whole Foods called obama a Fascist for his passing of the new FDA regs that sanction many organic foods, How do like him now Larry?
It is going to fun to watch eat crow after all the ass kissing crap you have said about obama
#42 by brewski on January 18, 2013 - 8:05 am
Larry,
As I have said before, I support Al Gore’s idea of eliminating all taxes on hiring people and replacing that with a stiff carbon tax. It would solve a lot of problems.
http://globegazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/replace-payroll-tax-with-a-carbon-tax-editorial/article_27fbd4a6-5564-11e2-9b19-0019bb2963f4.html
#43 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 18, 2013 - 10:33 am
The right wing would love that plan, first it instantly turns medicare and social security into welfare programs, because the taxes don’t come from wages they will no longer be earned benefits. And second if the carbon tax is successful, it provides a slowly diminishing return and would strangle those government services of needed revenue.
#44 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2013 - 6:04 pm
brewski:
I was actually referring to what you said here:
The article you liked to at #41 doesn’t mention solar alternatives and, frankly, if carbon taxes make my gas bill go up in the winter, I’ll be in big trouble. I was trying to make a case for tripling my ELECTRIC bill to pay for the installation of SOLAR technology on a massive scale so that Germany doesn’t make us look like idiots any longer.
#45 by brewski on January 18, 2013 - 8:11 pm
RDH,
Keep smoking those doobies. Call me when you need some more potato chips.
Larry,
A carbon tax would make all electricity coming from fossil fuels more expensive, especially coal. So while a FIT is very different from a carbon tax, both end up causing electricity to be much more expensive.
#46 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2013 - 9:00 pm
brewski:
I think you may have me mixed up with Mr. Hunt. I’m the one who admitted to smoking doobies. Ronald is much smarter then I am, but he spells “their” wrong every time.
You know as well as I do that the reason the people who love to control us DO NOT want us to have a system of power which allows us to become independent from the power corporations and, in fact, start charging THEM for power we produce from our own sources.
A government plan to supply jobs to Americans who want to proudly and, happily work to build such a system would level the playing field.
And you know how much I hate sports analogies.
#47 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2013 - 9:17 pm
McNeil Hughes:
I’ve been critical of Obama on this blog. Not as much as Richard has though. I sent him $45 dollars to defeat Romney, and I consider that to be a fantastic investment. Romney’s money has made him insane. Sure he can speak English “more better” then George W., but come-on!
I mean, it’s not as if the judges, bankers and the oil barons haven’t got the entire continent, and world, by the balls.
#48 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 18, 2013 - 9:39 pm
My grammar will likely be the death of me someday, I very much doubt I will ever get the damned “their”, “there”, or “they’re” thing right.
English is such a butchered, mutt, pigdog, of a language tho.
Cap and Dividend, makes alot more sense, then some contrived replacement for payroll taxes, designed to undermine the earned benefit programs.
It solves the problem of the cost shift from the energy producers, by paying back 75% of the collected revenue to each person in a equal dividend. With the remaining 25% being used as either general fund revenue or in programs to improve general electric infrastructure(everything from the transmission grid to more efficient appliances).
Also would be good start for a BIG, something that we will be forced todo sooner or later due to the changing nature of employment in a endlessly automated economy.
One other bit of energy policy that I would think be a good idea, all basic home appliances should be sold with the first 5 years of electricity built into the price. Simply include a coupon that can be turned into the power company for refund on the power bill. This would kill a large list of low quality junk electronics that are sold every year.
Ohh and a Wall Wart ban. All of those ac/dc adapters are crazy inefficient, Getting a unified dc plug standard and a minimum efficiency standard for ac/dc converters, would help a lot.
#49 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2013 - 10:04 pm
Ronald:
The only other instance I know about, of a word having three different spellings is the word to, but I’m know linguist myself.
In fact, I am still learning my own language, and I’m sixty years old. I keep a dictionary at the ready.
Keep the comments coming and if you have any suggestions for me – like, CONTROL YOURSELF -, feel free. I deserve it sometimes.
P.S. Can you image being an immigrant and trying to learn this language?
#50 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 19, 2013 - 9:32 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_reform
If you ever wanted an example of capitalism not creating the most optimal outcome you need only look at the English language, especially its orthography.
#51 by brewski on January 19, 2013 - 10:04 pm
Compare to what?
#52 by brewski on January 19, 2013 - 10:09 pm
A lot is two words, not alot.
#53 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 20, 2013 - 11:49 am
“Can you image being an immigrant and trying to learn this language?”
Funny you should mention that, considering many of the ****ed up spellings come from Dutch and French typesetters working in London in the 14th and 15th centuries.
In addition to never learning correct spellings, these typesetters would add extra letters to words, needless syntax and other odd bits. This was because they where paid by the letter!, Thing is however, that many of these ‘errors’, mispellings, and changes became the accepted spellings for many words.
Example, Shakespears tombstone spells friend as ‘frend’!
We all have to put up with this garbage because a couple frenchmen couldn’t be bothered to learn the language properly that they where printing books for!
And the illegal translation of the bible didn’t help, ( non Latin versions of the bible at the time where heretical, and would often cause translators to lose their heads.. literately). Banned books would often misspell words or add other errors to hide the origin, and where often made in haste with error prone to avoid the authorities at the church.
So, their you go, religion and money the source of all evil in the universe!
#54 by Larry Bergan on January 20, 2013 - 3:58 pm
That’s very interesting. I had no idea there was an attempt to make the English language easier to understand and even change the alphabet.
I don’t believe it’s ever going to happen. We should have adapted numbering system to the metric system, but it never flew.
We’re Americans, darnit!
#55 by brewski on January 21, 2013 - 9:33 am
I don’t think James I and VI was breaking the law.
I suppos wee kood all rit in foniks lik RDH wants.
#56 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 21, 2013 - 12:02 pm
Its was the William Tyndale translation of the New Testament Bible, not the King James version.
Really brewski, you shouldn’t make such silly assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
FYI, he was executed by strangling, then burnt at the stake.
#57 by brewski on January 21, 2013 - 12:07 pm
I am well aware of Tyndale. I wasn’t talking about Tyndale. I was talking about the son of Mary Queen of Scots.