Budget Battles

[jgaffney]

Harry Reid continues to play the "Shutdown" card.

Top US senator warns govt shutdown coming

President Barack Obama's top ally in the US Senate warned Thursday that talks on spending cuts were stalled on issues tied to abortion and the environment and that the US government seemed set to shutdown at midnight Friday.

"If this government shuts down -- and it looks like it's headed in that direction," Republicans will be to blame for insisting on "matters that have nothing to do" with spending, said Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid said that, on spending cuts, "the numbers are basically there" and both sides are "extremely close" after aides worked throughout the night following a meeting at the White House late Wednesday.

But "I am not nearly as optimistic -- and that's an understatement -- as I was 11 hours ago," because of the rifts over Republican-crafted measures to restrict access to abortion and roll back environment rules, the senator warned.

Reid said Obama had just telephoned him and Republican House Speaker John Boehner to spur the negotiations forward and warn that he opposed a new stopgap funding measure due for a House vote on Thursday.

Is it just me, or are the biggest advocates of a government shutdown all on the Democrat side of the aisle?

Make sure you understand the situation first. We are not taling about the 2011-12 budget, but the 2010-11 budget which the previous Congress failed to pass. Not just failed to pass, but failed to even bring up. Also, you should be aware that the Republican House has sent not one, not two, but three spending bills up to the Senate, but Harry Reid refuses to take any of them up. so, who's responsible for a shutdown?

Sean Hannity was talking last night about how the Democrat leadership cynically planned this last fall when they could see that they were going to lose their majority. Rather than face the issues that pushed them out of power, they worked to create this issue as an avenue of attack on the Republicans. Day after day, we are treated to the same old class-warfare arguments from the Left that they have drug out every time that they have their backs to the wall.

How many times have you heard that drastic budget cuts will lead to seniors losing their healthcare, or mothers not being able to feed their children, or children being thrown out of school? Has any of that actually happened?

Also, remember that the cuts proposed by the Republicans are to the inflated spending resulting from the 2009 Stimulus Bill. Remember when that was supposed to be a temporary measure to revive the economy? Now, it has turned into a starting point for increased spending by the government and any attempt to reduce that inflated spending is a "draconian cut."

All I know is that, unless we get a handle on government spending, we will end up in the same boat with Greece, Spain, Ireland and now, Portugal. If we can't cut spending ourselves, cuts will be forced on us that will not make anyone happy.

[jgaffney]

Here's an example of how Democrats play budget politics, from the SF Chronicle:

The most dependable way, since 2008, to give former warriors such as Wiseman a permanent place to live has been a federal housing voucher that pays as much as 70 percent of the rent for homeless veterans while they get their lives back on track.

But that program is in danger of being chopped to the bone.

The fiscal 2011-12 budget proposed in the House of Representatives by the Republican majority would eliminate funding for all 10,000 vouchers that the government plans to issue for veterans next year. The program that generates the vouchers, a joint project of the departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, is the only one of its kind.

It's also considered a linchpin of President Obama's goal, announced last year, of eliminating homelessness among vets by 2015. In places such as San Francisco, which hosts the most ambitious housing program in Northern California for homeless veterans, the prospect of losing the vouchers has counselors and veterans advocates blanching.

They say it would be a damaging blow to recent advances in housing homeless vets.

Later in the article, the author relates this heart-wrenching tale:

Hobert Lee, 52, got his voucher through the Swords to Plowshares Veterans Academy on Treasure Island.

"The voucher made a tremendous difference in my life," said Lee, who moved into his own apartment in San Francisco a year ago and now works as a pretrial counselor for the city's court system. "It gave me the ability to maintain an affordable place in an area where there would not be temptation to backslide."

Lee was a Marine from 1978 to 1982, and after being discharged as a sergeant, he found it hard to transition back into civilian life. A long period of homelessness, drug abuse and jail followed until he found refuge in the Swords to Plowshares program two years ago.

Wait a minute! Let's look at those figures again. Sgt. Lee is 52, which means he was born in 1960. If he joined the Marines in 1978, that means he was 18 when he signed up, the minimum age to join the Marines. He served for 4 years during a time when there were no major conflicts overseas - no Vietnam, no Iraq. He wasn't even involved in Grenada, because that kicked off in 1983.

So, Sgt. Lee entered the marines when he was 18, and got out when he was 22. For the past 30 years, his life has been wasted. He didn't use his GI Bill benefits to go to school or learn a trade. It's been longer since he got out than it was before he went in. I submit that, if Sgt. Lee had not joined the Marines, he would have just become a bum sooner.

The Marines will take your 18-year-old boy and turn him into a self-sufficient, disciplined soldier. He will be able to maintain his equipment, feed himself, mend his wounds and act as a unit to attack an enemy. You would think that those skills would also be useful in one's life after the Corps. In this case, not.

Another important point that is buried in the article is that the 10,000 vouchers that are proposed to be cut do not constitute the entire program, but the proposed increase for this year. Given the dismal performance of the program so far in permanently moving veterans out of transitional housing and into mainstream society, maybe it's time to take another look at the program, rather than to continue to throw money at a failing social experiment.

Maybe a better method for dealing with the homeless vets that seem drawn to San Francisco like a moth to a flame is to house them in the barracks that are left over at Camp Parks near Dublin. After all, they are used to barracks life and they could make themsleves useful by picking up trash in exchange for free room and board.

[subdjoe]

Have you noticed that the MSM has a lot of commentary about the GOP using the budget as a weapon to push their social agenda? But that door swings both ways, the Dems are doing the same thing without a peep.

How about a headline like "Dems Demand Continued Funding For Abortion Advocacy Group, Threaten To Block Budget If Abortion On Demand Is Hindered."

"White House and Congressional Dems again dig in and insist on indirect abortion funding or they will block pay for the military. 'We must keep funding the Margaret Sanger Memorial Eugenics Foundation. But providing tax dollars, we allow it to shift more money towards their Abortion Only birth control advocacy, which is an important plank in the DNC agenda. If we don't get it, we will block pay for the military."

[Joe Cocker]

Only the lefties are not saying anything about the control they had before the November election and not passing a budget back then as the H/C bill did it's damage.

[jgaffney]

Apr 8, 2011 21:22:27 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

How about a headline like "Dems Demand Continued Funding For Abortion Advocacy Group, Threaten To Block Budget If Abortion On Demand Is Hindered."

No one mentioned that Obama/Reid were willing to shut the government down rather than cut federal funding for abortions. Instead, we hear all about how Planned Parethood provides counselling for pregnant women and birth control services. In fact, the federal budget provides one-third of Planned Parenthood's $1 billion budget. If Planned Parenthood is such a Good Thing, do you think they could either cut back like everyone else, or replace the federal funding with private contributions?

[subdjoe]

Apr 12, 2011 11:38:47 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

Apr 8, 2011 21:22:27 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

How about a headline like "Dems Demand Continued Funding For Abortion Advocacy Group, Threaten To Block Budget If Abortion On Demand Is Hindered."

No one mentioned that Obama/Reid were willing to shut the government down rather than cut federal funding for abortions. Instead, we hear all about how Planned Parethood provides counselling for pregnant women and birth control services. In fact, the federal budget provides one-third of Planned Parenthood's $1 billion budget. If Planned Parenthood is such a Good Thing, do you think they could either cut back like everyone else, or replace the federal funding with private contributions?

Exactly. This is a perfect example of how thoroughly the MSM is owned by the DNC.