Saturday, October 12, 2013


I actually agree with much of this analysis, written by a conservative, and posted on a far-right site, of the shutdown situation. 

Yes, this is not illegal.  I mean, I wouldn't characterize it as a "right" of Congress, as the essay does, because there's a lot of distance between "not illegal" and a "right," but these Bozos in the House are definitely not breaking any laws.  Yes, the House did, indeed, offer a budget.  They've offered to fund the entire federal government.  Everything except for Obamacare.  No denying that.  And yes, this does mean that the Democrats could keep the government running, if only they had decided to pass that House budget without funding for the ACA.

Of course, there are also a few assertions the writer makes that are just downright squirrelly.

For instance, even though the US, in theory, may very well be able to continue paying interest on loans during a debt ceiling standoff, thus, in theory, avoiding the threats associated with default, that isn't how it worked in the real world last time.  How can we possibly forget that only a few brief years ago the US lost its triple A bond rating with one of the agencies SIMPLY BECAUSE there was a debt ceiling standoff?  Sorry, but it's insulting to ask me or anyone to accept such an "argument."  Classic case of peeing on you and telling you it's rain.  No way.

But it gets worse, and this is the key element these maniacs refuse to understand or accept.

The writer shrugs off both Obamacare and "legislation by appropriation" as "a matter of opinion."  I guess that's true enough in itself.  The ACA is a big and historic piece of legislation; there's bound to be lots of differing opinion on it.  And because "legislation by appropriation" is allowed only by the letter of the law, and one party is using it to thwart the other party, there are definitely going to be differing views about it, as well.  But that's the point. 

Obamacare isn't just some law liberals like but conservatives don't.  It's HUGE.  It's the Democrats' biggest accomplishment in fifty years.  It's Obama's signature piece of legislation, his place in history.  It took hell and high water to get it passed.  There is just no way they weren't going to go all Alamo and Masada in order to protect it.  And using an extraordinarily rare parliamentary maneuver, one which essentially amounts to extortion, to allow a legislative minority to reverse this signature piece of legislation just makes it all the more intolerable.  That is, sure, these are "matter(s) of opinion."  But they're BIG matters of opinion.  Vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big matters of opinion being existentially threatened by an ethically questionable and socially destructive political tactic, coming from what is clearly a minority of the electorate.

It is as though the Democrats, if their roles were reversed, were demanding that the Republicans provide free, tax payer funded abortions to any and all who want them.  That's how big these "matter(s) of opinion" are in this budget standoff.

And that's what Republicans won't allow themselves to understand.  You can go too far.  You can bully too much.  Other people have strong opinions, too.  Some things are worth fighting for.  And just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  We live in a democratic republic, which means that sometimes you're not going to get what you want, no matter how right you think you are.  That's how it works.  To reject this is to reject the philosophical principles on which the notion of democracy is based.

That is, anybody who supports this Republican extortion gambit is anti-American, and has no business running, or offering opinions about how to run, the country.  Just go home and let the grownups get back to work.