Govt Shutdown--GOP's Playbook

Let me start by making one thing clear--the Senate Democrats and the President are not going to budge, and eventually the House GOP will send either a clean CR to the Senate, or at best a CR with a medical device tax repeal/reduction/reprieve. That will be the eventual short-term result.



Why? Because it would be absolute lunacy for the Senate to acquiesce and set the precedent of letting the House compel the Senate to do the House's bidding by holding the economy hostage. Reasonable people on the right will recognize that this would be a horrible precedent--everytime a majority in the House wanted something they knew would otherwise be DOA in the Senate, they would simply wait til the next funding CR was due, and take the economy hostage. Imagine a Dem-controlled House that decided it really wanted to repeal the ban on tax-funded/assisted abortions or a federal gun-owner registry and mandatory background checks for all arms and/or ammunition transfers or sales, but a GOP Senate and President stone-walled?? Would you want the Dems to have the 2013 precedent of a Senate/Executive surrender? It won't happen, and if you have any hope for Washington ever moving beyond this pattern of governing from crisis-to-crisis, you do not want it to happen. So, for that reason, the only question is how long the GOP holds out, what they do in the interim, and whether or not they can get a minor concession (medical device tax?) to help save face when it comes time to end it.



How long will the GOP hold out? They will end it just before the debt-ceiling deadline hits. They won't take on the long-term stigma of causing the US to default. It's just not worth it when you know you are playing a losing hand.



What do they do in the interim? They now are down to sending department-by-department spending resolutions, forcing Senators to vote specifically to fund National Parks, the NIH, etc. They will do this not only to stall, but to provide fodder/cover in campaigns lest they be accused of shutting down National Parks--"I actually voted to fund the National Parks with no attached conditions, but the democrats turned it down to spite us. They kept Rangers out of work just to spite Republicans." It also provides ammunition against the Democrats who vote against it. "Why did you vote against re-opening National Parks?" They'll continue this department-by-department 'til they run the gamut to maintain the impression they are working for closure and to buy time to secure an eventual face-saving concession.



So, if the GOP knows they aren't going to win, and if they are taking a pounding in the press for this, what is the endgame? The GOP is looking to build a winning hand for the 2014 elections by taking this self-inflicted hit in late-2013. They know that a shutdown will be unpopular and turn some moderates against them in the short-term for the inconvenience and collateral damage inflicted on innocent citizens whose ability to do their job has been shunted. But what they are banking on is the idea that those same moderates, and even some/many on the left will be hammered by Obamacare beginning January 1, 2014. By the time primaries and later elections roll around in 2014, people will begin to realize that Obamacare is providing an inferior product and reducing discretionary income in many cases by 50%--and that it is not going away any time soon. Then the GOP will start pounding the pulpit--"We knew this was coming. We tried to delay it coming. We knew it would be this bad and tried to stop it, and if not to stop it, to put it off to try and fix it. But you know what happened? When we tried to fix it, my opponent and his fellow Democrats not only voted to keep this in place with no attempt to revise or improve it, but they were willing to shut down the federal government for twelve entire days to keep it. Let me repeat--they wanted this so bad they refused to let federal employees work and shut down museums and parks across this country to make sure this came to pass in 2014. My opponent now says he may be willing to look at improving Obamacare, but 6 months ago, he was shutting down the government to avoid even having a conference about what might be wrong with it."



If Obamacare is nearly as costly, inefficient, and unpopular as the GOP and OBM are predicting, this could be a withering argument and could swing many races. The GOP is willing to take this short-term blame with the understanding/hope that in 8 months they will have the higher-ground wherefrom not only will the Dems be left with the millstone of Obamacare being hung-around their collective neck, but also they will find the blame for the shutdown rebounding upon them. What seems currently to be tilting at windmills for the GOP may turn to be a moment of martyrdom.

Any CR will be a short-term fix. I've heard all the CRs currently proposed only fund the gov't for like six weeks.

There is precedent. When immigration reform bills were passed in the 90's, the Republican Congress required a secure border fence be built to pass the bill. The bill passed. Anyone see a secure border fence? Nope, because Democrats held appropriations bills hostage until the border fence was defunded.



This is no different, only the shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans don't understand the power of their own position. If they don't budge, Obamacare never sees the light of day. We currently don't have it, because it is not funded. It cannot be funded unless the Republicans vote for it. If you want to get the reform this country needs, you have to grind it to a screeching halt.



When social security checks stop being paid and there is rioting in the streets, you can bet that the Dems will be changing their tune because people will turn on them to get the welfare they already have.



This reminds me of the situation I read about once where a man attempted to rape an elderly woman. The elderly woman got a hold of his manhood and squeezed it until he was begging her to call an ambulance. Perhaps too graphic, but I think it paints the picture. The house needs to squeeze and recognize the power of its position.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
If they don't budge, Obamacare never sees the light of day. We currently don't have it, because it is not funded. It cannot be funded unless the Republicans vote for it.

Actually, it's already funded--95% of the ACA funding is deemed by itself to be mandatory expenditures, and therefore not subject to waiting for Congress to act to continually fund it. It is classed in the same category as air traffic control, Social Security, etc. Lots of other things may shutdown, but Obamacare is still funded and will move forward. That's why the original CR proposal from the House was the standard funding CR, with a positive addendum to defund Obamacare. If Obamacare needed a CR to move forward, the House CR would have been a CR to fund everything BUT Obamacare. Hence the term "DEfund" and not "refuse to fund." It already has the funds, and the GOP wants to take them away.

snoscythe wrote:

If they don't budge, Obamacare never sees the light of day. We currently don't have it, because it is not funded. It cannot be funded unless the Republicans vote for it.

Actually, it's already funded--95% of the ACA funding is deemed by itself to be mandatory expenditures, and therefore not subject to waiting for Congress to act to continually fund it. It is classed in the same category as air traffic control, Social Security, etc. Lots of other things may shutdown, but Obamacare is still funded and will move forward. That's why the original CR proposal from the House was the standard funding CR, with a positive addendum to defund Obamacare. If Obamacare needed a CR to move forward, the House CR would have been a CR to fund everything BUT Obamacare. Hence the term "DEfund" and not "refuse to fund." It already has the funds, and the GOP wants to take them away.

Oh, I see. :blush:

Cougarfan87 wrote:



This reminds me of the situation I read about once where a man attempted to rape an elderly woman. The elderly woman got a hold of his manhood and squeezed it until he was begging her to call an ambulance.

I saw that story. You weren't too graphic, It would have been too graphic if you described that she wrung it like a wet towel.

Schmoe wrote:

This reminds me of the situation I read about once where a man attempted to rape an elderly woman. The elderly woman got a hold of his manhood and squeezed it until he was begging her to call an ambulance.

I saw that story. You weren't too graphic, It would have been too graphic if you described that she wrung it like a wet towel.

I sort of feel like this is what the Congress is doing to me. :bug:

BoiseBYU wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote:





I sort of feel like this is what the Congress is doing to me. :bug:

and the president.

If Sno is right, then it's sure a shame that the shutdown had to occur during the same weekend as the Obamacare roll-out.



the shutdown is taking away headline space from how terrible, slow, and muddled the roll-out has been. Obama has probably been thrilled to talk about how much he's bending over backwards for the GOP instead of defending OcrappaCare.

CougarClaw wrote:
If Sno is right, then it's sure a shame that the shutdown had to occur during the same weekend as the Obamacare roll-out.



the shutdown is taking away headline space from how terrible, slow, and muddled the roll-out has been. Obama has probably been thrilled to talk about how much he's bending over backwards for the GOP instead of defending OcrappaCare.

Why do you think the Dems won't even find parts of the government? They need the headlines and their praetorian guard media discussing anything other than the unmitigated disaster that is and will be ObamaCare.

I actually find this to be quite compelling political theater. It's fun to see politicians actually hold a line. That said, I think that after this issue is settled -- the GOP will give the Dems a clean CR and the debt limit will be raised...Again -- Reid and Boehner should resign their positions as majority leaders. Neither has the political saavy to actually lead.



And America will continue it's long, slow march toward financial ruin.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPBp3e6t7Ik" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906704579113661593684356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a short, but illuminating read dismantling "President" Obama's positions that (i) the "hostage taking" by the GOP in return for concessions outside of a CR is unprecedented, (ii) the President should not have to negotiate with Congress for a CR, and (iii) that the House is obligated as a matter of Constitutional requirement to pass a clean CR. It also drills him for the naked hypocrisy in the argument he attempts that the House needs to accept the ACA because it's the law.



http://spectator.org/archives/2013/10/09/brazen-claims-to-executive-pow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Share with your friends--facebook, Twitter, WUPHF, etc.

Good stuff. I found this yesterday

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/10/pentagon-warns-to-expect-radical-change-in-us-government-soon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

scott715 wrote:
Good stuff. I found this yesterday

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/10/pentagon-warns-to-expect-radical-change-in-us-government-soon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whatever your link says, it must be pretty damning because my firewall derailed my initial attempt to read it, and once I got past that, my anti-virus shut the browser down to protect me from it. Unfortunately though, that means I couldn't read it.

From the European Union Times



A highly troubling “urgent bulletin” issued earlier today by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) states that it has received information from the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) warning to expect a “radical change” in the government of the United States, possibly within the next fortnight, based on information they have received from “highly placed” sources within the Pentagon.



According to this MoFA bulletin, GRU intelligence assests were notified by their Pentagon counterparts this past week that President Barack Obama is preparing to invoke the powers given to him under 50 USC Chapter 13 to hold that various American States are now in a “state of insurrection” thus allowing him to invoke the National Emergencies Act under 50 USC § 1621 and invoke the highly controversial “continuity of government” plan for the United States allowing him, in essence, to rule with supreme powers.



Specifically, this bulletin says, Obama will invoke 50 USC § 212 that states: “ the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”



. . .

scott715 wrote:
From the European Union Times



A highly troubling “urgent bulletin” issued earlier today by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) states that it has received information from the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) warning to expect a “radical change” in the government of the United States, possibly within the next fortnight, based on information they have received from “highly placed” sources within the Pentagon.



According to this MoFA bulletin, GRU intelligence assests were notified by their Pentagon counterparts this past week that President Barack Obama is preparing to invoke the powers given to him under 50 USC Chapter 13 to hold that various American States are now in a “state of insurrection” thus allowing him to invoke the National Emergencies Act under 50 USC § 1621 and invoke the highly controversial “continuity of government” plan for the United States allowing him, in essence, to rule with supreme powers.



Specifically, this bulletin says, Obama will invoke 50 USC § 212 that states: “ the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”



. . .

Were this to happen... "it" is going to hit the fan. Sometimes, that's exactly what I believe our current president wants.

http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/inarticulate-republicans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



CAFB, you used the democrats word of the month "clean". ;)

Cougarfan87 wrote:
There is precedent. When immigration reform bills were passed in the 90's, the Republican Congress required a secure border fence be built to pass the bill. The bill passed. Anyone see a secure border fence? Nope, because Democrats held appropriations bills hostage until the border fence was defunded.



This is no different, only the shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans don't understand the power of their own position. If they don't budge, Obamacare never sees the light of day. We currently don't have it, because it is not funded. It cannot be funded unless the Republicans vote for it. If you want to get the reform this country needs, you have to grind it to a screeching halt.



When social security checks stop being paid and there is rioting in the streets, you can bet that the Dems will be changing their tune because people will turn on them to get the welfare they already have.



This reminds me of the situation I read about once where a man attempted to rape an elderly woman. The elderly woman got a hold of his manhood and squeezed it until he was begging her to call an ambulance. Perhaps too graphic, but I think it paints the picture. The house needs to squeeze and recognize the power of its position.

Social security is not welfare. It is a retirement account that we have paid into for our entire work lives, which the government has been robbing from to pay for their excesses, and which they want to use as leverage against Americans.

Social security is simply a huge ponzi scheme that is running out of gas. There never should have been a way to force American's to contribute. Just like there should not be a forced insurance. The vast majority of American's would have done better by using their stolen social security money to invest in whatever they felt was appropriate vs. giving money to one of the most inefficient organizations in the world.

bigbluepuma wrote:

There is precedent. When immigration reform bills were passed in the 90's, the Republican Congress required a secure border fence be built to pass the bill. The bill passed. Anyone see a secure border fence? Nope, because Democrats held appropriations bills hostage until the border fence was defunded.



This is no different, only the shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans don't understand the power of their own position. If they don't budge, Obamacare never sees the light of day. We currently don't have it, because it is not funded. It cannot be funded unless the Republicans vote for it. If you want to get the reform this country needs, you have to grind it to a screeching halt.



When social security checks stop being paid and there is rioting in the streets, you can bet that the Dems will be changing their tune because people will turn on them to get the welfare they already have.



This reminds me of the situation I read about once where a man attempted to rape an elderly woman. The elderly woman got a hold of his manhood and squeezed it until he was begging her to call an ambulance. Perhaps too graphic, but I think it paints the picture. The house needs to squeeze and recognize the power of its position.

Social security is not welfare. It is a retirement account that we have paid into for our entire work lives, which the government has been robbing from to pay for their excesses, and which they want to use as leverage against Americans.

I understand that part of social security is a retirement account which has its own problems. However, a lot of social security is the welfare handed out as disability when roughly 40% of those applying for the disability can still work, but get approved anyway. What else would you call a disability payment besides welfare? There was a 60 Minutes on it this past Sunday. Really it is a sad statement on the get-something for nothing society. For those who truly are disabled and cannot work at all, I can see the reasoning. I also have no problem drawing SS when you have put into it as a forced retirement account. Heaven knows I will want the 74% of what I am supposed to get (as my benefits letter keeps telling me I will get--I'm not sure I even believe I will get 74%). But for those 40% claiming disability that can still work--that is just wrong.