Top Treasury Official: Government Shut-Down May Be Unavoidable.

i wrote a bit ago how there seemed to be a bipartisan concensus forming around the superiority of a Government Shutdown as opposed to the current constant-continuing-resolution-with-nothing-resolved method.

Looks like the White House, having failed entirely to lead in any way whatsoever (and there's both Republicans and Democrats complaining about that), may have decided to follow the crowd.

again.


A senior Treasury department official told reporters Thursday that a brief government shutdown may be unavoidable as the only feasible way to de-escalate the confrontation over government spending dividing Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill...

The official's remarks represent the most serious indication yet that the administration is willing to endure a short term shutdown despite the unknown political costs, to focus congressional leadership on brokering a long-term deal. But they also come at a time of ongoing negotiations between the White House and congressional Republicans, and are a signal that the administration isn't resigned to getting rolled by the GOP. Whether that's tough talk designed to move negotiations, a bluff, or an indication that the White House is prepared to go the brink on this remains to be seen.

The government is currently operating on a pared-back two-week continuing resolution. House Republicans are now preparing another two-to-three week CR, to buy congressional leaders time to work out a longer-term funding bill. A veto of that, or a similar future measure, would trigger a government shutdown...

Funding for the government expires a week from today. Republicans are using short-term spending bills to clawback government spending across the board. That inches them toward their goal of cutting scores of billions of dollars from Obama's budget, but, by not setting new spending levels for all government programs, creates waste and makes it difficult for the government to function in accordance with its current priorities.

I'd run for president on "Look, we need to ****ing do something about Defense, Medicare, and Social Security" but nobody would vote for me

Remember when THAT EVIL OBUMMER was TAKING 500 BILLION FROM MEDICARE, KILLING GRAMMA?

Yeah. That but also with soldiers.

Deuce said:

I'd run for president on "Look, we need to ****ing do something about Defense, Medicare, and Social Security" but nobody would vote for me

Remember when THAT EVIL OBUMMER was TAKING 500 BILLION FROM MEDICARE, KILLING GRAMMA?

Yeah. That but also with soldiers.

Click to expand...

Anybody else not understand this ****?

American said:

Anybody else not understand this ****?

Click to expand...

Basically he's saying that if he ran for President he'd put all spending cuts on the table, not just the entitlements but also drastic cuts to defense.

American said:

Anybody else not understand this ****?

Click to expand...

Deuce is saying that he'd run on a ticket that was up-front about the fact that we need to get spending on defense, Medicare and Social Security under control. His belief is that nobody would vote for him because his opponents would sensationalize the issues he was running on and then bury him under an avalanche of attack ads for daring to embark on specifics regarding the three most golden of all the Federal geese.

It wasn't that complicated.

TacticalEvilDan said:

Deuce is saying that he'd run on a ticket that was up-front about the fact that we need to get spending on defense, Medicare and Social Security under control. His belief is that nobody would vote for him because his opponents would sensationalize the issues he was running on and then bury him under an avalanche of attack ads for daring to embark on specifics regarding the three most golden of all the Federal geese.

It wasn't that complicated.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well that SOUNDS good, but any time you include defense in that mix it will end up being the only thing cut. And that's, no doubt, the whole intent for some libs. Now some will say that I don't think defense can be cut; well yes and no. It all depends on what parts you cut. The most likely area to be cut will be R&D. Well we tried that during Clinton, it left us with obsolete equipment where the public later accused the govt of not providing enough armor for our troops. Well you can't advance the state of the art without sufficenct funding. So the result was we provide armor that was too freaking heavy for both vehicles and personnel.

So the bottomline is that the cuts would likely occur in areas you don't want them to, but on the surface the politicians can say they made cuts.

American said:

Yeah, well that SOUNDS good, but any time you include defense in that mix it will end up being the only thing cut. And that's, no doubt, the whole intent for some libs. Now some will say that I don't think defense can be cut; well yes and no. It all depends on what parts you cut. The most likely area to be cut will be R&D. Well we tried that during Clinton, it left us with obsolete equipment where the public later accused the govt of not providing enough armor for our troops. Well you can't advance the state of the art without sufficenct funding. So the result was we provide armor that was too freaking heavy for both vehicles and personnel.

Click to expand...

The Defense Department has plenty of useless spending that it can cut, on programs that are designed more to funnel pork money to certain congressional districts than to keep us safe. They can start by getting rid of huge fleets of expensive fighter planes, as though there is even a remote possibility that any future wars we might find ourselves in will involve dogfights against powerful enemies.

American said:

So the bottomline is that the cuts would likely occur in areas you don't want them to, but on the surface the politicians can say they made cuts.

Click to expand...

Any cuts to discretionary spending that DON'T involve defense are just window-dressing so that politicians can say that they made cuts. Outside of the DoD, there just isn't that much wasteful spending in the discretionary budget. The real money is in entitlements.

Kandahar said:

The Defense Department has plenty of useless spending that it can cut, on programs that are designed more to funnel pork money to certain congressional districts than to keep us safe. They can start by getting rid of huge fleets of expensive fighter planes, as though there is even a remote possibility that any future wars we might find ourselves in will involve dogfights against powerful enemies.



Any cuts to discretionary spending that DON'T involve defense are just window-dressing so that politicians can say that they made cuts. Outside of the DoD, there just isn't that much wasteful spending in the discretionary budget. The real money is in entitlements.

Click to expand...

Damn straight, and I'm waiting for a liberal to belly up to the bar and tell us all how we're going to cut that down.

American said:

Damn straight, and I'm waiting for a liberal to belly up to the bar and tell us all how we're going to cut that down.

Click to expand...

For social security:
- Continue raising the retirement age by two months per year, into the indefinite future.
- Means-test social security, so that people with more than $200,000 in income or $1 million in assets do not receive it.
- Index starting social security benefits to price inflation rather than wage inflation
- Index annual benefit increases to a price inflation measure that takes into account changes in buying behavior

For Medicare/Medicaid:
- Mandate that all health insurance policies include at least two no-deductible checkups and (for women) one no-deductible mammogram per year
- Pay Americans small cash stipends to get preventative care and checkups
- Extremely heavy government investments in R&D for cancer and heart disease...this would save far more lives than, say, the Department of Homeland Security
- Federal standardization and funding for medical documents, to make them digital. Some of this was included in the health care reform bill, but it doesn't go far enough in this regard.
- Reform medical malpractice laws, and determine maximum award amounts depending on the type and severity of injury.
- Tax employer-provided health care benefits as regular income, in order to sever the odious link between health insurance and employment once and for all. This connection drives up medical costs for everyone, including Medicare/Medicaid recipients.
- End the monopolization of the AMA over the medical certification process, which creates an artificial shortage that drives up medical care costs for everyone, including Medicare/Medicaid recipients.

Well, that was fast. :lol:

American said:

Yeah, well that SOUNDS good, but any time you include defense in that mix it will end up being the only thing cut. And that's, no doubt, the whole intent for some libs. Now some will say that I don't think defense can be cut; well yes and no. It all depends on what parts you cut. The most likely area to be cut will be R&D. Well we tried that during Clinton, it left us with obsolete equipment where the public later accused the govt of not providing enough armor for our troops. Well you can't advance the state of the art without sufficenct funding. So the result was we provide armor that was too freaking heavy for both vehicles and personnel.

So the bottomline is that the cuts would likely occur in areas you don't want them to, but on the surface the politicians can say they made cuts.

Click to expand...

How often have medicare, social security, and defense all been on the table for cuts, and what result did we end up with?

Show me.

American said:

Damn straight, and I'm waiting for a liberal to belly up to the bar and tell us all how we're going to cut that down.

Click to expand...

Easy. Get rid of it. Oh, and also the military. Well, ok, we'll leave one billion dollars for the military. Expand welfare for those who REALLY need it and let others plan out their own retirements.

Deuce said:

How often have medicare, social security, and defense all been on the table for cuts, and what result did we end up with?

Show me.

Click to expand...

The GOP won't touch Medicare or Social Security right now because they know they'd get their butts handed to them in the 2012 election. They'll go along with some cuts in defense spending as long as they are cuts both sides view as wasteful spending. SecDef Gates started down this road of identifying where defense cuts can come from last year. So, the Dems have the jump on them now. The GOP will play along for now in this regard, but they'll start to play-up their "disapproval" in how the Obama Administration is handling the War on Terror in Afghanistan eventually as the July 2011 early troop withdrawal date draws near.

If you really want to know what the GOP plan is leading up to 2012, read the book "Revolt!" by Disk Morris & Eileen McGann. So far, the GOP has followed it step-by-step, but they'll start feeling some backlash very soon.

Their effort to repeal ObamaCare didn't work (of course, they knew it wouldn't).

Their efforts to defund ObamaCare will go largely unsuccessful because most of the funding has already been built into the law. (Thanks, Michelle Backmann, for making clear. And BTW, the $105 Billion price tag she flashed on poster board on Meet the Press recently, that figure and ALL of her talking points on it came directly from the book (page 112).)

The GOPs next move is to give little chunks to spending bills, but keep forcing votes on short-term continuing resolutions throughout the rest of FY2011. If the government shuts down, oh, well. The objective isn't to put the country back on sound, economic footing. It's to paint the President in a bad light, to convince the People that he can't lead.

Problem: People are more displeased with Congress than they are with the President. And considering that the mid-terms was about getting spending under control AND giving the GOP the opportunity to demonstrate that they could lead and be bipartisan moreso than the Dems AND get the economy moving again, I'd say they've done a lowsy job so far because their focus isn't on the economic recovery; it's about winning back the Presidency, maintaining control of the House and regaining control of the Senate. In short, their game plan is all about regaining power unto themselves, not about doing what's in the best interest of the country or the People.

Read the book...their plan is laid out in black and white for all to see.

iamitter said:

Easy. Get rid of it. Oh, and also the military. Well, ok, we'll leave one billion dollars for the military. Expand welfare for those who REALLY need it and let others plan out their own retirements.

Click to expand...

one billion dollars for the military won't even defend the borders :roll: why don't we also leave $450 for a court and federal prison system.

cpwill said:

one billion dollars for the military won't even defend the borders :roll: why don't we also leave $450 for a court and federal prison system.

Click to expand...

sounds good to me.