Nick Gillespie:
Whether it turns truly apocalyptic or ends up just being a short break in standard operating procedure, there’s plenty of blame to go around when it comes assigning responsibility for the government shutdown.
The one thing that shouldn’t be slighted, though, is that it is ultimately Barack Obama’s fault. He’s the deciderer, right, the top dog? The eight years of his time in office will be known to future generations as the Obama Years and not the Boehner Perplex or the Reid Interregnum.
With great power – and Obama insists he has the unilateral right to kill anyone, even a U.S. citizen, that represents a national security threat – comes great responsiblity.
Instead, President Obama is indulging in incredible displays of peevishness such as this one yesterday during an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. Asked what he might offer to House Republicans, who have called for, most recently, a delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate and a bunch of other late-breaking proposals generally unrelated to how much the government will be spending over the next 12 months:
“Steve when you say what can I offer? I shouldn’t have to offer anything,” Obama said. “They’re not doing me a favor by paying for things that they have already approved for the government to do. That’s part of their basic function of government; that’s not doing me a favor. That’s doing what the American people sent them here to do, carrying out their responsibilities.
Read more here. And don’t miss his message to the troops, where he blames Congress for “dysfunction.”
Yeah, you shouldn’t have to offer anything, Mr. President. What is it that you like to say in such situations? I won. Get over it.
But you do have to offer something now because you didn’t make sure to get a spending plan in place when there was more time to screw around.
Indeed, the shutdown is happening because the federal government doesn’t have a budget for fiscal 2014, which starts today. The reason it doesn’t have a budget is because the Republican-led House passed a budget calling for $3.5 trillion in spending, the Democratically controlled Senate passed a budget calling for $3.7 trillion in spending, and President Obama issued a proposal calling for $3.77 trillion in spending. This happened back in the spring. The House and the Senate passed their budget plans in late March. The president’s proposal, the last to be issued, came out on April 10.
In a republic, or a democracy, the will of the people overshadow and overpower the will of the politicians… In a dictatorship, the will of the ruler overshadows and overpowers the will of the people.
So… Obama refuses to negotiate with Congress on any point in a Continuing Resolution written in lieu of the budget they should have passed (by law) many months ago. He didn’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire to prepare and pass a budget (again, required by law, held up by the Senate), yet he his railing against Congress to force something the majority of the citizens do not want.
So again, my question… just what kind of government do we have here?
Scott in Oklahoma
hi,
this is a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ON THE MAKING,
who began with an bow and an apology for what it’s PEOPLE
have done to the TERRORISTS who came to destroy it its PEACEFULL PEOPLE,
done by a sympatiser of those FOREIGN COUNTRIES
influence by hate not love for AMERICA, and it’s BRAVEST PEOPLE,
A GOVERNMENT OF REVENGE , PUNISHMENT AND SOCIALIST MARXIST COMMUNIST ,
BY REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, which belong to THOSE WHO WORK HARD TO MAKE THEIR SUCCESS,and did it themselves
AND ACQUIRE THE LIVES THEY DREAMED FOR THEIR CHILDREN ,
AND OTHER who worked for them, in a SUPER COUNTRY, they love and follow the laws of the land,
now a land being attack from the four sides of it’s boundary
@Scott in Oklahoma: So true Scott. In our country, there is a Senate and a House. Each one of them has to approve a budget. The Repubs control the House, the Dimocrats the Senate. Each side has the ability/authority to pass what they want. The two have to reach agreement in conference on what the final bill will be. Each side will/should have to reach a compromise, which means getting some of and losing some of the things they want. But, just because the President is a member of one party does not mean that he necessarily gets more or less than the other party at conference. Once the two House’s reach agreement, the President can sign the bill or not. The Houses can override any veto. So, unless one party controls both houses, there has to be compromise. Neither party gets all they want.
@Redteam: At least that’s the way it is supposed to operate, we don’t have that anymore as evidenced by Obama’s actions over the last five years. He took it slow at first, choosing (through various czars) to regulate instead of legislate, to see how far he could go without repercussion. Then he decided to ease in some decided to arbitrarily violate a few laws and see what the repercussions would be. And on and on, until we arrive here… where the will of the citizens is outweighed by the will of the one. And make no mistake about it, he is watching and making decisions from the top, either direct decisions or his minions know what they need to do to please him.