A Continuing Resolution is a temporary measure designed to buy time for negotiations to continue when the fiscal year ends. In the past, as with raising the debt ceiling, passing a stopgap was routine business. It becomes necessary when the House and Senate fail to agree on appropriations bills to fund government for a whole fiscal year, as is the case. Tea Party Republicans said they believed their party should push for deeper cuts at every turn. 50 of them signed a letter to Boehner calling for those deeper budget cuts and when those demands were not met, 48 of them voted against their own party’s bill.
So did Democrats, but for different reasons. Former Speaker of the House and now
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters that Democrats believed disaster funds were for emergencies and no offset spending cuts would be acceptable to her members. Asked whether there might be any offset that House Democrats would back, Pelosi said, “I think I answered that question: there has never been an offset for disaster assistance.”
Boehner and other House leaders had to rewrite the measure to appease Democrats and to appeal to the Tea Party wing of their own party. Democrats saw the amount of disaster assistance as inadequate and objected to the Republicans’ insistence on offsetting some of the cost with cuts elsewhere. They remained nearly united against the measure. So, Boehner cracked the proverbial whip with his members and the revised bill passed by seven votes to go to the Senate in time for the House to go on recess.
"The House bill is not an honest effort at compromise," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "It fails to provide the relief that our fellow Americans need as they struggle to rebuild their lives in the wake of floods, wildfires and hurricanes, and it will be rejected by the Senate." Saying that he had hoped House Republicans would move toward the middle Reid said, "Instead, they moved even further toward the Tea Party." The Senate voted 59 to 36 to table the House bill, which effectively killed it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Your attempt to differentiate philosophy from ideology is problematic. What's the real, functional difference? Ideology is the product of philosophy, and the philosophy of the Republican party is clearly changing, leaving behind big-government dinosaurs like Boehner.
The fact is that the Democrats are the core of the problem here, and this is why their resounding defeat in 2010 will be followed by what will look like a bloodbath in 2012.
The people have figured out what's going on in the government. They're tired of insider deals and crony capitalism and they are demanding change from both parties. The Republican leadership is getting hit hard, but only because they are in the way of going after the real enemy of the people, the Democrats.
Pelosi and Reid should enjoy their ability to be obstructionists while the can. Their days are strictly numbered.
Dave
2 - jamminsue
Dave, I am surprised.
Ideology - "doctrines, opinions" and beliefs, which everyone has and few have examined. Further, an Ideologue is one who is deaf to any idea except one's own and will not listen.
Philosophy - "study of principles underlying conduct, thought, and nature of universe" Philo means wisdom in Greek. Wisdom does not solidify into ideology. Proverbs 8:30, which is wisdom speaking is “his darling and delight/playing in his presence continually.” That is not ideology.
Plato said: "Opinion without knowledge is ugly" (Plato Republic VI 506c)
3 - jamminsue
Sorry, I forgot to put in references. The definitions in quote are from "Webster's New World Dictionary" August 1995 ISBN 0671-51984-4 Wisdom Proverbs from "Oxford Study Bible" 1992 ISBN 978-0-19-529000-4 and Plato from "The Republic of Plato" Trans Allan Bloom 1968 ISBN 978-0-4-6506934-7
4 - zingzing
dave, you're bonkers, and a sucker as well.
5 - mills
Your god is the beast
6 - roger nowosielski
Mannheim's (ultimate) definition of ideology:
“…knowledge is distorted and ideological when it fails to take account of the new realities applying to a situation, and when it attempts to conceal them by thinking of them in categories which are inappropriate…” (p.340) , Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia.
Why would anyone fail to take account of "the new realities," let alone try to conceal them? The natural explanation is, they find "knowledge" so articulated useful to some other ends, and in the realm of politics, hold on power is one such end. Which is why what passes for political philosophy in the realm of practical, day-to-day politics has a strong ideological taint.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave, you've gone off the edge of the map. There be monsters there, big honking strawmen that you'll have to move Heaven and earth to defeat!
8 - c holland
when the republicans denigrate government to the point of wanting it destroyed, it's no surprise they can't field serious candidates for government office. dave nalles' inability to separate ideology from philosophy is a big part of the problem--ideologues can't grasp that other people could differ with them philosophically, so anybody who disagrees with them is contrary, stupid and evil.
9 - Tommy Mack
“What will look like a bloodbath in 2012,” that Dave mentions, will be voter backlash towards the 112th Congress and its tarnished sterling accomplishment of nothing. The ideologues who continue to wave the cut-expense-and-no-tax-ever stick will likely be sent home. It happens that most of them are Republicans. The problem is that their uncompromising and dogmatic position is not what gets things done and voters are paying the price for electing them.
Our media needs to keep this story churning. Words like “bloodbath” may fit the form but are wishful on Republicans’ part.
Tommy
10 - thomas mc
The Tearrorist Party goal is the destruction of the United States of America.
11 - jamminsue
thomas, #10
I don't think the idea is to destroy the US, but to return it to 17xx, when there were NO rights except for a few land owning Christians, which Tea Party people believe themselves to be.
12 - Tommy Mack
“The Tea Party will runs its course,” Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) told me in an interview last week. Stark has been in Congress for 38 years and said that he has never seen things so contentious and non-productive. However, what its “course” is has yet to be seen.
The impact of its rhetorical anger, with the catch phrase “take the country back,” I my opinion, seems to be in decline without its most influential spokesperson, Sarah Palin. Even Eric Cantor appears more to the Republican center than he did when he walked out of negotiations during the debt ceiling show. But, it is Tea Party contempt for process that will damage the GOP for a long time.
Tommy
13 - Cannonshop
#8, which is exactly the position of Progressive demogogues. Or demogogues on any issue.
Nalle's comment number 1 is pretty much expected, as is the indignant and team-cheering reply of most of the Progressives posting after.
It's 2011, I don't think anyone who stops to think about it seriously for more than a minute without inserting their own "Team Loyalty" can say, with any confidence whatsoever, what 2012's elections (thirteen months away) are really going to do, who's going to win which seats where, or even who's going to make it to the final ballot stage after the primaries.
Public opinion is mercurial at the 'best' (most easily predicted) of times.
The only thing I CAN say, is that regardless of who wins or loses, if the winners keep trying the same things that failed to fix the problem under Bush (and Obama), those things will likely fail again-with deeper, nastier, less-recoverable results.
The old, reliable models aren't working, whether in politics, or the economy. It MAY be time to consider different approaches, different methods, even to consider that we might not be in a condition to run the same failed experiments over and over and over again, and to admit that the cheering was premature in 2009-the recession didn't end, it just ticked, and kept on grinding, or that maybe it's NOT okay to blame the last guy if the current guy can't manage to do the job.
Just sayin'...
14 - Cannonshop
Since I"m in a wordy mood tonight..
digging through JFK's speeches, I note that he didn't do a lot of ass-covering, blamethrowing, or temper-tantrums. He wasn't real popular while he was alive, but the thing that struck me, is that his charisma was more about doing than about complaining over the mess he inherited from Eisenhower, whom likewise didn't do a lot of bitching about Truman's policies harming his own.
In all of Obama's droning, there is a LOT of bitching, whining, moaning and blaming, but not much in the way of that steamrolling attitude of doing.
fits with the times- these days are more about the Rush Limbaughs and Keith Olbermans of the world, than about the people who might actually have a plan beyond cheering their chosen team and treating national issues like Gladiatorial Sport, rather than something that impacts our lives in meaningful, often destructive ways.
There's always another "Them" to blame for misfortune, but what about US? are we not responsible for some our own difficulties anymore? Accountable for our own mistakes and misjudgements? Consider that the GOP leadership is scared to death of the TEA Parties, and it's NOT because they're spectacularly well organized, or asking for anything they haven't been promised (repeatedly) for decades-often by BOTH parties.
The debt-ceiling showdown wasn't much of a showdown, in the end, the bill that got moved didn't cut much, it didn't even cut into the GROWTH of spending much, and it certainly will not DO much about the economic health of the country one way or the other.
It was theatre, in the end, more meat for the gladiatorial pit, but no practical substance in dealing with either the Debt, or the slowdown in the economy.
15 - Clavos
The Tearrorist Party goal is the destruction of the United States of America.
It isn't, but it should be.
16 - roger nowosielski
@14
Listen to Obama in his "campaign mode." Now he portrays himself as the warrior for jobs, after three years of inept administration on the domestic front. And his "new" show of enthusiasm. The man belongs on any street corner shouting from the rooftops than in any official position.
It's sickening! If the people will re-elect this phony, they'll have only themselves to blame.
Not that it matters much anymore. As Clavos hinted at in #15, we're on a self-destruct course, Tearrorist Party or not.
17 - roger nowosielski
To change the topic --
A word from our sponsors would be more than welcome about the cyber attack that's been on for three days now and counting! Just to let us, hoi poloi, know what's going on.
18 - Tommy Mack
. . . on any street corner shouting from the rooftops. . . Block that metaphor!
So, you don't like Obama. Got it.
Tommy
19 - roger nowosielski
I find his worked-up "enthusiasm" when in campaign mode obscene, especially the second time around.
20 - roger nowosielski
If the BC geeks don't do anything about this cyber attack, and soon, it's about to put the entire site out of commission.
It's surely spreading.
21 - REMF(MCH)
"...this is why their resounding defeat in 2010 will be followed by what will look like a bloodbath in 2012."
Ooohh, another military metaphor...
22 - Cannonshop
#19 Roger, that's rather uncharitable of you. Think on it this way-he's shifted from 'idled' to "high function"-Obama's resume makes clear he's really only good AT campaigning, so his going INTO campaign mode might actually net some progress in terms of getting some kind of work actually DONE.
23 - roger nowosielski
As I said, Cannon, the first time around was tolerable since he was still a "nobody." But now that he's a sitting president, whatever you or I may think of him personally, I find his barking from the podium not only repulsive -- that's neither here not there -- but downright undignified and demeaning to the office.
Imagine JFK stooping so low. Even GW had more class.
24 - roger nowosielski
And he's supposed to be a statesman!
25 - Cannonshop
#23 But what else would you expect? The guy was a failed community organizer, never passed a Bar Exam in spite of a Harvard Law Degree, made a mess of his term at the Annenberg project, worked part time as a "lecturer", not a full Professor, has never drafted legislation as a legislator, (though to be fair, he did know how to say "Me Too" on a few pieces of law), carried a briefcase for a more experienced Senator during his (incomplete) tour in the U.S. Senate... I mean come on now, you didn't take this guy seriously, did you? He's a "Newsreader" who can make whatever is on the teleprompter in front of him sound intelligent, genuine, and sincere-and I'm told by both women, and a few gay friends, that he's rather handsome.
But it wasn't his policy positions, or even his experience at making, shaping, or guiding policy that got him the job-he was selected in a manner similar to those 'Reality/Talent' gameshows, by basically the same audience.
Substance didn't get him in, and it won't get him out.