Tag Archives: spending

What the Democrats’ Shutdown is Demonstrating

Posted on by
3

Following is a partial list, in no particular order, of Federal Cabinets and agencies whose leadership has deemed significant majorities of their work force nonessential.  There are more listed over at Slate:

Office

Per Cent Nonessential

White House

74

Treasury

82

Labor

82

Interior

81

EPA

94

NASA

97

Housing and Urban Development

96

Education

94

Commerce

87

Smithsonian

84

There are others, also, with a different per centage of nonessentials:

Office

Per Cent Nonessential

U.S. Commission of Fine Arts

100

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness

100

USDA Risk Management Agency

100

Federal Maritime Commission

100

Economic Development Administration

100

Minority Business Development Agency

100

And in a telling comment on the Obama administration’s attitude, over at the Ag Department all of the employees—every one of them—in the Office of Ethics have been deemed nonessential (along with those of the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and of the Chief Economist).  Go figure.

Plainly, all of these Cabinets and agencies could do with some serious downsizing.  Sure, sure, a significant per centage of these nonessentials really are essential over a long run—the admin assistants, for instance, who are the true heart of any office in which they work—but plainly another significant per centage of these nonessentials are nonessential, over any time frame.

There’ve also been some small moves to eliminate/privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two Federal Agencies Government Sponsored Enterprises whose misbehaviors contributed so heavily to the housing market bubble and burst that occurred on the front end of the Panic of 2008.  Now we see, courtesy of the Democrats’ shutdown (maybe these guys are doing us a favor, after all) another Federal housing agency that’s in the way of our economy:

Housing-industry officials, for example, predict a lengthy shutdown could make it tougher for home buyers to secure mortgages, in part because of reduced staffing at the Federal Housing Administration.

This is another Federal facility that’s plainly in the way of our economy.

Debt Default Redux

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) continuing his meme of refusing to negotiate, says

We not only have a shutdown, but we have the full faith and credit of our nation before us in a week or ten days[.]

Never mind that this could have been settled much earlier in the year, but for Democrats’ and President Barack Obama’s intransigence:

Reid and other Democrats blocked numerous attempts…to approve House-passed bills reopening portions of the government.

And there’s that whole “Presidential” series of “veto threats against GOP spending bills” thing.  The “GOP” part is the kicker.

In the end, it’s clear that, having gotten the government shutdown for which the Democrats have fought so hard, they’re now bent on default.

Again, I ask, why?  I also ask against this backdrop: from Section 8 of our Constitution we have

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….

Paying the national debt isn’t just one of only three purposes for which the Federal government is permitted to “lay and collect Taxes;” it’s the first purpose.

And from the 14th Amendment we have

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The Federal government collects in tax revenue roughly 10 times the amount of money required to make the payments on the national debt as they come due.  Suggesting that that’s in danger, that debt default is a risk, is dishonest.

Government Funding

Posted on by
1

When I got up this morning, I found in my inbox the following email (reprinted in its entirety, including the link he provided for his short floor speech) from Senator Mike Lee (R, UT).  He makes some valid points; please read his email carefully.  After that, I have a couple of minor points.

We shouldn’t have to fund everything in order to fund anything

Why won’t Democrats take “yes” for an answer on Vet funding

Today, in an effort to move forward and end the government shutdown, I asked for the Senate to pass a bill that had already been passed by the House to fund veterans’ benefits.  The motion was quickly shot down by Democrats who provided little explanation for their opposition to funding veterans’ benefits.

Following proper regular order, Congress would vote on and ultimately approve a dozen or so separate, segmented appropriations measures to fund each area within the federal government.  Each program or function area would have to stand on its own merits in order to get funded.  In a big government that spends between $3.5 and $4 trillion a year, and it’s important that we break spending decisions into pieces.  Unfortunately, over the last 4 1/2 years, we’ve been funding government on the basis of back-to-back continuing resolutions. The problem with these measures is that they basically require us to fund everything or fund nothing at all.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives are quite wisely saying that we should start funding bills within those areas where there is broad-based bipartisan consensus.  I agree  that we should immediately start funding the government in those areas where there is obvious and overwhelming support including programs like veterans’ services, national parks, cancer research, and the National Guard and Reserves.

Republicans and Democrats came together in the House and approved bills overwhelmingly. I think we owe it to the country to show that we can do the same thing in the Senate.  In a matter of hours the vast majority of the government could be funded.  It was the president himself who asked Congress to fund a list of priorities in a speech to the nation a few days ago.The House of Representatives has courageously delivered a series of bills that will do exactly what the president asked.  Now President Obama and Democrats in the Senate are having a hard time taking “yes” for an answer.

I continue to work around the clock with my staff and my colleagues in both houses of Congress to fund the government and protect the people from the harmful effects of Obamacare.  I am confident we can do what is best for Utahns and for the future of our country.

Now, my lesser points.  First, finally, Republicans are talking to us directly.  This is good.  Second, look at the tone of his email, and compare it with the tone of the emails many of you may have gotten from Democrats—usually fund-raisers (none of that in Lee’s email).  If not, the folks at Power Line get missives from Democrats and reprint them.  Which party actually is making an argument for their case, and which cannot and so is limited simply to attacking the other party?

The Mendacity of the Obama Government Shutdown

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an example.  The House, earlier in the week, passed an appropriations bill—devoid of anything else, a clean CR, IAW Democrat instruction—the Senate passed it, and President Barack Obama signed it.  “It’s the law of the land.”  This appropriations law fully funds the DoD for the next couple of months.

Despite that, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to furlough 400,000 DoD civilians (apparently his fair share of the Obama shutdown).  Congressman Buck McKeon (R, CA) wrote to Hagel, asking how that furlough worked, since DoD was fully funded.

Hagel’s response?  Through “a senior Defense official,” Hagel said he had no way to respond.

Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed[.]

Because the responsible officials—Hagel’s deputies, Obama’s appointees—are illiterate, apparently.  Or they need an authority figure to tell them what to do, and both Hagel and Obama are too busy to provide that instruction.  Or these worthies simply are too proud to do their work with their own hands.

This Is

Posted on by
Reply

…what President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) and other Democrats want to shut down our government in order to protect:

California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. …exodus from the…state’s Obamacare exchange: Aetna, UnitedHealth, Anthem Blue Cross (which left the Obamacare exchange for small businesses,t too)

54% of Californians expect to lose their coverage….

Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system—13 hospitals—will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield.  Anthem’s 79,000 Missouri patients may seek subsidies on Obamacare’s exchanges, but they won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

Connecticut: Aetna…won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange: “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers.”

Maryland: Aetna and (recently purchased)…canceled plans to offer insurance in the [Obamacare] exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

South Carolina: Medical Mutual of Ohio left SC entirely in July due to Obamacare’s “vast and quite complex” new regulations.

New York: Aetna pulled out of New York’s exchange…to keep their plans “financially viable.”

New Jersey: Aetna won’t be a part of the [Obamacare] exchange.

Iowa: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield…decided not to offer plans in the Obamacare exchange.

Wisconsin: United Healthcare and Humana [will not offer] insurance on Obamacare exchanges.

Georgia: Medical Mutual of Ohio, Aetna, and Coventry left due to Obamacare regulations.

More than a million-and-a-quarter insurees and potential insurees are affected by this Democratic Party action.