The Collision Blog:
Call off the angry mob, because it’s time to have a real conversation about Paul Ryan and the Omnibus. Many of my friends have taken various sides on the issue, why not throw mine out there, as well.
First and foremost, I apologize ahead of time for the length of this post, but there’s a lot to cover.
To begin with, we need to realize how ridiculously hasty we have become. Living in hysteria is exhausting; we’re weary of attempting to fetch the smelling salts for them, and they’ve got to be getting tired of declaring the death of our country every time a patriot pundit updates their status.
So, I recommend the following steps when political news breaks: Read the news, listen to a little Bob Marley, take a few days to read even more news from various perspectives on the issue, practice a few deep breathing exercises while you ponder, make a list of pros and cons, resist the urge to share that rage inducing image of Paul Ryan in a Nazi uniform from any Facebook page with the word “patriot” in the title. Most importantly, answer this short list of questions:
- What are we dealing with?
- What were the other options?
- What would happen if we went with the other options?
- Have I acknowledged the positives?
- Have I been manipulated?
- Do I understand this issue enough to put a curse on someone’s soul?
We shouldn’t need #6, but sometimes people can be irrational beings, doing what we sincerely hope is just their best impersonation of an inebriated Sybil, so it’s necessary. We live in the world of hysteria, where the brash response is celebrated. We’re the societal version of Who’s Line Is It Anyway: Everything’s made up, and the points don’t matter.
Since the “new patriots” tend to invoke the names of the Founders to support their brazen approach, it would serve them well to reevaluate their history. For example, a vast number of our Founding Fathers fully acknowledged that slavery was antithetical to their revolutionary ideals of liberty. They sacrificed the inclusion of such verbiage from the DoI because they knew that they first needed a united and independent country before they tackled such a divisive issue. However, the verbiage they did include in the Founding documents would become the catalyst for the recognition of human rights for all people, which would lead to the abolition of slavery. They knew that to ever end slavery, they had to take deliberate and systematic steps – it took time and strategy.
The Founding Fathers were not impetuous, they were meticulous and wise, knowing that permanent change was the ultimate goal. So when you flip your lid because “defunding Planned Parenthood wasn’t in the spending bill” you’re not acting like a Founding Father, you’re behaving like that irrational child throwing a tantrum at Chuck E. Cheese. Looking at you, Michelle Malkin.
1. What are we dealing with?
As Julie Andrews once sang to a small gang of emotionally detached – yet surprisingly all musically inclined – mischievous children, let’s start at the very beginning; what is the Omnibus bill?
Congress is responsible for putting forth a budget for the 12 appropriation committees’ needs, which include the Legislative Branch, Military, State Operations, Foreign Operations, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc… Now, if these were divided into twelve separate categories, they’d be easily digestible.
Well, nothing is easy in government, but you get the point.
However, since our House resembled that dysfunctional family down the street with their twelve kids who keep playing chicken with the cars on the highway, it was really difficult to get all twelve categories settled upon in a reasonable time. Thus, the Omnibus was born.
So as to dodge budget expiration, they bundled all twelve into a giant mess that can either be supported or rejected. Paul Ryan has voiced his opinion on the process.
“I hate omnibus bills and I don’t like doing these last-second bills. … The reason this year is because Harry Reid filibustered all but one appropriations bills and our own caucus seized up in the middle of the summer, unable to pass any appropriations bills because of some poison pill amendments. … We have a new commitment in the Senate to not block appropriation bills and by having this budget agreement that my predecessor put in place we no longer have a dispute over the sequester. The reason for the filibusters is gone. By getting the slate cleaned now, by getting this behind us, we can start our appropriations process early next year and do it the right way, individual bills, all 12 bills, open up the process…do it the way the Founders intended in the first place.”
Right after the deal was passed, he made this statement to reporters:
“You know I don’t like this process, right?” he told reporters. “I mean you know we inherited a process, a cake that was pretty much more than half-baked.”
In short: Due to the short amount of time, in conjunction with previous issues (cough, cough, Freedom Caucus), there wasn’t a vast number of options. That didn’t stop the angry lynch mob of the far right, which really isn’t the “far right,” because they barely represent conservative principles anymore.
2. What were the other options?
Delay or government shutdown.
3. What would happen if we went with the other options?
Delay: Would only delay a deal that was sure to pass. Time constraints would have made change all but impossible. If anything, the delay would have raised more public awareness to a broken system, which would not have been a bad thing, but the results would still be the same. Efforts to delay were noble, but similar to show votes, would not have truly made a difference.
Government Shutdown: No. You may say you want a government shutdown while you’re sharing Breitbart articles and preaching on the greatness of Drudge polls, but you don’t really want that. You say you want a shutdown, and then I have to listen to you complain about how your uncle is a dedicated soldier who is going without pay. I already know he’s going without pay, because I know what a government shutdown entails, and that’s why I didn’t share that photo saying “SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, WE DON’T NEED THEM” from a Facebook page with a name like “Uncle Sam’s Patriot Eagle Loving Children of George Washington.”
Shutting down the government hurts military families, endangers national security, and stops me from taking my dog to a well manicured park. Which Ryan noted, and you’d know what he said if you pulled your head out of the rage media sands and listened to his statements as opposed to the mangled excerpts in your Tea Party emails.
“We didn’t want to hurt the military. Shutting it down deprives the troops of their pay. It deprives the men and women who are out there fighting for us of their resources. You’ve heard me as a strong, strong critic of Obama’s foreign policy and his ISIS policy. We have to go on offense in the war on terror. We have to go on offense internationally. By shutting the government down, you are bringing the military to a screeching halt. We do not want to use the men and women in our uniform as political pawns in this game. We want to get this behind us.”
Not to mention, if we shut the government down at this point, we can basically hand Hillary her crown and toss our kids into her oven.
“We shut the government down and then won a whole bunch of seats in 2014?!!!!?!? Explain that!”
Okay. Well, counting on a shutdown to win an election is an incredibly risky game. If you look back to Clinton and Bush shutdowns, you’ll find that the benefits swing to the left and right, and have more to do with the political climates at the time than with the shutdown itself. We were destined to sweep in 2014 due to unemployment, Obamacare, 30+ year low in LFP, etc., etc., etc… There’s no real proof that the shutdown was the tipping point, just like there wasn’t in the 90s shutdowns. It has more to do with who’s in charge during a time of instability. After the debacle with the Kamikaze Caucus, and our longstanding GOP front-runner, a shutdown could easily be painted as our problem, aiding Hillary in the election.
4. Have I acknowledged the positives?
With the points mentioned above noted, we actually received a good deal out of the bill (I recommend listening to this interview with Ryan). Our military was given the resources they need, which should be at the top of everyone’s list. We permanently lifted a 40 year ban on the export of crude oil, which removes the handcuffs Russia had on other countries and creates jobs. Democrats tried to sneak in anti-gun riders, as well, and failed. And, despite the hysteria, pro-life riders remained intact.
“BUT SYRIAN REFUGEES!”
An incredibly strict bill passed the House with a veto proof majority, and the Senate will be voting on said bill after the first of the year. The 1.6 billion was not approved specifically for Syrian refugees, it is part of our refugee program, and I don’t know why I should ever have to say this, but we’ve had a refugee budget for a very, very, very long time. This doesn’t just pay for refugees, it pays for preparations and border resources. Text taken directly from the bill:
Poop pile of excuses and dungheap of cover
This is not why we the people voted conservative to represent us. If the Dems played dirty then we must also, repair what both damn parties broke. Funding every wish list to get a few trinkets. Blowing the budget caps remember what office Ryan held, he was the chairman of the House Budget Committee from 2011 to 2015, he wasnt a poor ignorant soul handed a half baked cake.
Or, instead of Bob Marley, you could listen to Al Wilson, a fantastic musician, singing the Immigration Theme Song (Liberal Version):
Or, if you’d like to sing along, there’s this:
@Petercat: Curt is singing
I like to sing a few bars being from WI