Will the GOP use "Tea Party" as a Government Shutdown Scapegoat?

[Fergasun]

There is an interesting dynamic in the FY11 budget battle between the DEM and GOP/TEA party. For those not up to speed, there have been $10B in cuts from the FY10 baseline. The GOP/TEA party wants $50B more. The continuing resolution passed this week has exhausted all of the "low hanging fruit" in the budget. That is to say, Democrats had pretty much already agreed to cut this much from the budget a month or so ago. The current funding resolution continues until April 8.

I'll start with a prediction. I think some agencies like Department of Defense will get a FY2011 budget and won't have to work under a continuing resolution after April 8. I don't know what other agencies are up for little or no cuts, perhaps Department of Homeland Security as well. I have seen from the press that Gates has indicated that there are holes in the budget. One thing I've seen is that Congress passed a 1.4% pay increase for the military, but being that accounts are still at FY2011 levels, money has to be moved from somewhere to make up for that pay increase. I don't know what other agencies received little or no cuts... these might be easy areas of compromise.

The interesting thing from the statements is that the Tea Party is putting out rhetoric that they are not happy with the continuing resolution and want a budget passed that has $61B in cuts. They are married to this $61B number. Thus, 54 members of the House GOP/TEA caucus (primarily the TEA portion) voted against the continuing resolution. In showing their willingness to do this, the TEA members have shown that they want to shutdown the government, and they will if they don't get the $61B.

The Senate got a shot at both budgets, the $10B cuts from the Democrats, and the $61B cuts from the House. Neither of them passed. So, much like other issues in the past couple of years, it will take a Senate compromise to get something passed. I believe that even though these types of bills have to originate in the House, the Senate can modify it and then send it back to the House. I think the cuts may be $20B or $30B... it'll be interesting if the TEA party accepts those cuts, I'm positive the GOP and DEM parties will accept them. The GOP may actually be undermining the TEA faction on purpose because they don't want the full GOP to get the blame for a shutdown, and it may show people that the TEA party is not serious about running the government (ie. hello! you only control 1 branch of government! November results did not change the total makeup of the Senate and President).

The Senate got a shot at both budgets, the $10B cuts from the Democrats, and the $61B cuts from the House. Neither of them passed. So, much like other issues in the past couple of years, it will take a Senate compromise to get something passed. I believe that even though these types of bills have to originate in the House, the Senate can modify it and then send it back to the House. I think the cuts may be $20B or $30B... it'll be interesting if the TEA party accepts those cuts, I'm positive the GOP and DEM parties will accept them. The GOP may actually be undermining the TEA faction on purpose because they don't want to get the blame for a shutdown or bad government.

[chipwhich]

There was a continuing resolution passed? Please Fergason tell me when that occurred.

Make sure you use correct language.

[88Comrade2000]

The Tea Partiers are already pissed at not only the Republicans but the Tea Partiers that didn't tow the Tea Party line,

I expect a 2 prong strategy in 2012. The tea partiers will first attempt one final takeover of the Republican party by running candidates against all Republican incumbents and Tea Partiers who didn't tow the two party line. If they fail to take over the Republican party, they will go third party in the fall.

Either way, it should spell good news for the dems come fall. Either the vote will be split three way or the remaining moderate Republicans will flee the new Tea Party Republican Party.

There is a coming split one way or another on the Republican side and that should help the dems in unexpected ways.

[Fergasun]

Here's excerpts from the right-wing blog HotAir.com:

Now, Democrats have agreed to six billion dollars in cuts for just three weeks. That’s a total of $10 billion thus far in two CRs covering five weeks. Given that only four members out of their caucus of 53 Senators voted against this CR, can we now dispense with the ridiculous notion that the House’s proposal to cut $61 billion represented some kind of radical action that would undermine the very fabric of the Republic?

Given that the vote was really a vote to ensure a shutdown doesn't occur, it doesn't matter how many members of their caucus voted against this bill.

Among those voting no: Michele Bachmann, Jason Chaffetz, Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, Steve King, Thad McCotter, Ron Paul, Mike Pence, and Allen West, who wondered when Congress will begin showing “adult leadership” on spending.

"Adult leadership" means being realistic with what you promise the kids. If you can't deliver on $61B in cuts from FY2010, don't promise it. The GOP has over-promised to their constituents, they were expecting $100B in cuts, now have $61B in cuts, and that will be further reduced.

This if my favorite "opinion covered in fact":

Just to make sure you understand what a joke that boldfaced part is [it was about how 3 GOP members voted against the Fiscal Comm], one of the three Republicans who ended up voting no on the Deficit Commission report was — ta da — Paul Ryan. And needless to say, the man behind the Roadmap has no qualms about Social Security reform; the reason he voted no was because the Bowles/Simpson proposal wasn’t aggressive enough in controlling health-care costs. Does the White House seriously expect people to believe that Paul Ryan isn’t a good-faith partner on reducing cost curves? Seriously?

Guess what buddy! When Paul Ryan voted against the deficit commission, he clearly showed that he wasn't a good-faith partner on fiscal issues. So even though you are talking about specifically social security, its clear that Paul Ryan had no interest in reducing the national debt outside of his own political interest, he would've voted "Yes" to, wait for it, not simply passing the fiscal commission, the vote was on debating it in Congress.

[Thiebear]

Lets break this down a bit easier to read:

All those in power will attempt to stay in power.

The leaders of both parties will support whomever they think will 'win'.

Palin will make another 30mil trying to get 22 people into office and succeeding with 6 teapartiers. F'ing sellout genius.

[DRSmith]

The Tea Partiers are already pissed at not only the Republicans but the Tea Partiers that didn't tow the Tea Party line,

I expect a 2 prong strategy in 2012. The tea partiers will first attempt one final takeover of the Republican party by running candidates against all Republican incumbents and Tea Partiers who didn't tow the two party line. If they fail to take over the Republican party, they will go third party in the fall.

Either way, it should spell good news for the dems come fall. Either the vote will be split three way or the remaining moderate Republicans will flee the new Tea Party Republican Party.

There is a coming split one way or another on the Republican side and that should help the dems in unexpected ways.

I think the tea party ruprtures soon, as the religous dictocrates assert themselves more and more they will drive out the truely small government fiscal cons who classical liberals

[Fergasun]

I was trying to find some more information on the Tea Parties. Although some folks are called "tea party leaders", my bet is that at most there are 20-30 national "leaders". There are things like the Virginia Tea Party Federation coming out against George Allen's pick for someone to help him campaign for the 2012 Senate seat.

Here's a quote from an article on tea party folks upset with Eric Cantor:

"We are extremely disappointed in Eric Cantor, but not surprised," Mark K. Lloyd, chairman of the federation, said in a news release. "The will of the American people was pretty clear in November — cut, cut, cut spending. Apparently, Eric Cantor's 'conversion' to fiscal restraint was only temporary."

Guess what guys. If you want everyone to think there is a "cut, cut, cut" mandate... win the Senate and White House in 2012 with Tea Partiers. Shut down the government, and see how people like it. Unfortunately (for them), they don't understand that Obama's 2008 election doesn't represent a "cut, cut, cut" mandate; and that much of the Senate also wasn't elected based on a "cut, cut, cut" mandate. One election in one year does not a mandate make (this is something all political parties need to recognize).

I think the centrist GOP understands this. People complain "they go along to get along!" Well, that's how politics works. For the most part when Scott Brown got Kennedy's Senate seat, the parties had some gridlock. Since that time, the GOP was largely able to block Democratic agenda (if you want to know why the Democrats didn't pass a budget in 2010, does anyone doubt it would've moved in the Senate?). Some of the initiatives that did get moved were things that moderate GOP supported, and was able to get done probably to the howls of GOP folks around the country.

I think people don't understand politics. The leaders of both parties think they have the "winning" strategy. For the Democrats its closely tied to having some type of economic recovery; for the Republicans "winning" is trying to convince people that budget cuts are what we need, and we need more of them. Of course when things happen like what went on in WI, a budget-cut bill was combined with an attack on collective bargaining rights, its somewhat harder for me to trust either party.... both parties will get the furthest stuff they can push on their agenda... which I think is exactly what is wrong with politics (see the health care reform bill for the shoe being on the other foot.)

[Nerm]

There is a part of me that likes some of what the Tea party stands for. I tend to be a small govt, civil liberties kind of guy. I probably lean more towards libertarianism at the national level. I get more liberal as government gets more local. So, I am glad to see the Tea party shift the Republicans away from the "Borrow and spend all you want as long as gays can't marry" time of the Bush administration. However, I do think that there is going to be a lot of tension between the factions in the Rebulican party that are idelogically driven, and those that are willing to compromise to get cuts that get us closer to a balanced budget. For example, I'm afraid that people will dig in over NPR or planned parenthood, even if the other side will be willing to offer larger alternative cuts.

I do think it is a little early to blame the Republicans for a possible shutdown before it even happens though. I read an article in The Hill, suggesting that democratic lawmakers are more supportive of a shutdown than republican lawmakers. There seems to be a consensus that the public would blame the republicans for this. So, I think it would make sense to look at the final proposals being made by both parties before we blame one side or another for a shutdown that hasnt even happened yet.

[chipwhich]

I am still waiting for Fergie to let me know when a continuing resolution is passed.

He said it in his OP

[88Comrade2000]

What we need is an honest frank discussion at all levels of government.

What do you want your local, state and federal government to do? What you decide what you want it to do, then you decide how you pay for it.

Complicating matters is the fact everyone is in debt.

Our creditors aren't going to lend us money forever and we can't sustain the debt forever. We need to get us on a path to completely eliminate our debt and keep balance budgets except in times of national emergency.

I think 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina would classify.

At the federal level we need a national sales tax and once the debt is paid off, made that transition to eliminate or drastically reduce the income tax.

[Fergasun]

chipwhich,

I don't know what you're talking about. So I guess your humor went above my head.

Here's the White House Press Release:

Statement by Press Secretary Jay Carney on Senate Passage of the Three-Week Continuing Resolution

Today, the Senate passed a short-term funding bill that avoids a government shutdown and gives Congress the time to find common ground on a measure to take us through the end of the fiscal year. Continuing to fund our government in two or three week increments adds uncertainty to our economy and distracts us from other urgent priorities facing our nation. Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to come together and find a long-term solution that cuts spending without impeding our ability to win the future. (blahblahblahblahblah)

Again, I'm really sorry I don't know what you are talking about. You've stumped me. Did I previously call it something like a "continuous resolution"? Guess I'm playing Oswald in this prank...

[Conn]

What we need is an honest frank discussion at all levels of government.

What do you want your local, state and federal government to do? What you decide what you want it to do, then you decide how you pay for it.

This will never work in our current two-party system. It just won't. Politicians rely on certain platforms to get elected, promising grand change, and fail on the large scale almost every time, but at the same time ARE able to deliver by bringing home that pork...the money that benefits their state, town, etc. And without any accountability, they can blame the "other side" for not cooperating on the bigger issues, while continuing to deliver money to their geographic constituents. Unfortunately, this money being pulled every which way to satisfy the promises of individual politicians to their voters manages to keep them elected, while constantly increasing our national debt.

And there's no reason for these politicians to change anything about it, because in this two-party system, there is no responsibility, in terms of accountability to your party. Not in any meaningful way. Someone promises to lower taxes and keep bringing home the pork (which actually has a negative effect on the country as a whole), and they succeed there while failing to fulfill any of the larger promises made while campaigning...and its enough to keep them in office, which is the ultimate goal of every political figure.

Its a vicious cycle that allows everyone in the loop to keep their jobs, which maintains the ridiculously high percentage of incumbents being re-elected (anywhere from 93-97%, if I'm remembering correctly), while changing nothing of importance. They can blame this lack of important decision-making on the opposing party, while continuing to deliver on the small things that keep them in office, causing a perpetual cycle of political stagnation.

This, above anything else, should be why Americans lack enthusiasm about their elected officials. Not because of their party, but because no matter their party affiliation, the democratic system that we have in America is not conducive to change, and is incredibly effective at one thing: keeping the status quo, and keeping all parties involved elected, no matter how often they fail to keep the grand promises made during their campaigns, and how poor the small-scale things they do for their geographic constituents are for the nation as a whole.

Edit: I know that parts of this post are repetitive/convoluted, but its 2:58 in the morning here. Haha.

[Fergasun]

Let's start the honest discussion at the Federal level.

Who decided, and when did they decide that $13T+ is too much national debt to handle? No one seemed too concern when we went through $5T, $8T, $10T, and $12T. I don't remember massive mobilization by "tea party" folks against Bush for his fiscal policies.

We do have forums for a national discussion, its called Congress. As far as I know, the policy direction of Congress is "when our party is in power we spend on what we want to spend it on. This policy has been going on for decades. If you really want to get into the discussion of the function the government should be doing, get ready for a lot of minute detail. There are people who say, "I don't want my government employing anyone!"... well how does work get done? Should government be providing a social backstop for folks? Should government get in the health care business? These are all discussions that have taken place over decades, and a majority of folks have said, "Yes! We want government to do this!" Otherwise, those programs wouldn't survive at all even with a bunch of folks lobbying for them.

I'm quite interested in how this tea party thing will play out the next 4 years. I have no idea who is tea party, who is not; how much of it is a "paper tiger", which is my suspicion. With respect to spending, its like the tea party has ignored the fact that we've had national discussions on all of this; most people are expecting or relying on the Federal spending, and the tea partiers are late to the table and suddenly throwing a fit or saying "its time we had the discussion." The nation had the discussion, its called "Congress". They add a new voice to the discussion but I think its silly to act like there isn't a nation-wide discussion going on.

[NoCalMike]

Since when are the tea party for civil liberties?

[DRSmith]

I think early on many were about civil liberities but as the movement grew they were co opted by the religous dictocrats and heading into the election gay marriage and abortion became more of an issue as seen in what sort laws are getting passed.

I think we see the tea party folks get bussed in to support governments that strip away liberities from people they show more and more this movement is not about small government and indivuals but money and telling others what you think they should do

[Larry]

Here's a quote from an article on tea party folks upset with Eric Cantor:Guess what guys. If you want everyone to think there is a "cut, cut, cut" mandate... win the Senate and White House in 2012 with Tea Partiers. Shut down the government, and see how people like it. Unfortunately (for them), they don't understand that Obama's 2008 election doesn't represent a "cut, cut, cut" mandate; and that much of the Senate also wasn't elected based on a "cut, cut, cut" mandate. One election in one year does not a mandate make (this is something all political parties need to recognize).

I've got an even better idea:

If you want people to think there's a "cut, cut, cut, mandate", then how about

1) When you finally get to power, not making your first official act to be changing the rules of Congress so that passing tax cuts and repealing Obamacare are exempt from having to be deficit neutral.

2) And when the people who are claiming the "cut, cut, cut, mandate" actually do 1), anyway, don't act like you didn't notice, and it's no big deal.

The mighty Tea Party revolution hadn't even finished unpacking the cardboard boxes in their new offices before demonstrating that advancing the 30 year old GOP agenda was more important than reducing the deficit.

[Thiebear]

You've pointed this out twice now: 1) When you finally get to power, not making your first official act to be changing the rules of Congress so that passing tax cuts and repealing Obamacare are exempt from having to be deficit neutral.

I am dumbfounded as to how the liberal media has not had this in ASF like flashing glitter lights at least for a week.

You would think that is an immediate recognition of lying from the start. But I guess they figure it will be posted and forgotten 13months later when they have to use it.

Heck, I didnt even believe you the first time and followed the link to being shocked.

Then i was shocked i was shocked .

Though i would like to know how the teaparty candidates that won voted on that bill.

If ALL of them voted against it, It would be a start. (going to look). Wow there are 52 of them in the Tea Party Caucus.

[alexey]

I am dumbfounded as to how the liberal media has not had this in ASF like flashing glitter lights at least for a week.

Which media are you talking about? The mainstream media has been letting both parties get away with murder for years, and the actual liberal media nobody cares about.