Cline, Good, Griffith Outvoted in Bid to Secure Border, Stop CR

Rep. Ben Cline, Republican from Virginia’s 6th District

by Scott Dreyer

The federal government’s fiscal year ended September 30, and in what has become a frequent occurrence, the Congress had failed to present a budget for the president’s signature.

In the weeks and days before September 30, many politicians, pundits, and average citizens were debating what would happen and what would be best for the country.

The overall Democrat position was that spending should continue at current levels, including funding for Ukraine’s war against Russia. The thought of a government shutdown was portrayed as a potential disaster that would cut stop salary and relief payments to deserving Americans.

This position is seen in tweets on X, formerly known as Twitter, by Virginia’s two US senators. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) on Sept. 27 wrote:  “Extreme House Republicans have no plan to stop a shutdown, forcing millions of servicemembers & federal workers to go without pay. Shutdowns have a terrible human cost. We have to prevent this.”

On September 29, Virginia’s Junior Senator Tim Kaine (D) tweeted: “House Republicans threatening a government shutdown—which would hurt Virginians’ access to basic services they rely on every day—as a form of leverage is cruel and irresponsible. We can and should come together in a bipartisan way to avert a catastrophic shutdown.”

This position usually makes no mention of the fact that the US government already has a $33 TRILLION debt, a number recorded on usdebtclock.org .

A differing opinion was found among a number of Republicans in the House of Representatives. That mindset focused on tackling the unsustainable debt, the huge interest payments on it, and the linkage that no further US money be sent to defend Ukraine’s border while the Southern US border is open to illegal aliens entering.

Simply put, the end of the fiscal year is one of Congress’ few “leverage points” to demand the Executive Branch secure the southern border and make some budgetary cuts.

Those espousing that position seldom highlighted the suffering those who rely on government checks would experience if those payments were delayed. Since Northern Virginia is next to DC with many federal employees and Tidewater has a large military presence, many claim a shutdown would hurt Virginia more than most other states.

On the afternoon of Saturday, September 30, with only about ten hours to go before a shutdown, the House voted 335-91 to pass a so-called “Continuing Resolution (CR).”

In recent years, Congress has passed many CRs. These essentially keep the federal government functioning, at full spending levels, without any agreed-to budget.

Notably, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) got the CR approved with more Democrat votes than Republican. Specifically, 209 Democrats voted for it, with only one opposed, because this CR contained no new funds for the Ukraine War.

In contrast, only 126 Republicans voted for it.

This led some to wonder, “Who is the real Speaker of the House? Republican McCarthy or Democrat Hakeem Jeffries?”

Ninety Republicans voted against the CR, including the three Congressmen representing Central and Southwest Virginia. They are Reps. Ben Cline (6th District), Morgan Griffith (9th), and Bob Good (5th).

Their no votes put them not only at odds with their party leader McCarthy but also the other eight House members representing other parts of the Virginia: six Democrats and two other Republicans.

Explaining his no vote, Cline posted this to X on Sept. 30: “Continuing the bloated Pelosi spending levels and the chaos of Biden’s open border is unacceptable. I will be voting NO on the 45-day clean CR today.”

On Sept. 29 Rep. Good tweeted: “The September 30 deadline happens every year. This isn’t a surprise. At least the House has passed four individual spending bills to fund our veterans, military, homeland security, and State Department. The Democrat Senate has done nothing.”

On Sept. 30, following the vote, Good posted: “Kevin McCarthy put a CR on the Floor that got 209 Democrat votes, since it kept in place the Biden-Pelosi-Schumer policies that are destroying the country and the spending levels that are bankrupting us. Sadly, it also got 126 Republican votes. Uni-Party rule.”

The CR funds the federal government for another 45 days. Cynics point out this postpones the issue till mid-November, right before the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, when most people are distracted with other matters.

The votes by representative and state can be seen here.

Republished with permission from The Roanoke Star. 

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

167 responses to “Cline, Good, Griffith Outvoted in Bid to Secure Border, Stop CR”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “This led some to wonder, “Who is the real Speaker of the House? Republican McCarthy or Democrat Hakeem Jeffries?””

    Remember the good old days when Nancy could hold her House majority together and deliver the votes needed to operate the government…. ah… the good ole days…

    1. Lefty665 Avatar

      Yes I remember them well, like when Nancy held the bipartisan Senate passed infrastructure bill hostage and helped elect Youngkin. Those were the days my friend.

      Then there were all the times small groups of Dems scuttled legislation and Nancy would promise them everything for their votes, and then another small clutch would stall legislation again. The Squad and Dems for SALT relief were especially fetching in those roles.

      Nancy was a self proclaimed legislative genius who tore up the State of the Union address, and then went to Taiwan and tried to start a war with the Chinese.

      Maybe Nancy will do us all a favor and stay in San Fransisco with Feinstein’s body. Now those would be good days, ole’.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Sounds like a bit of jealousy speaking there… fact is Dems could govern under Nancy, Reps can’t under… who is in charge now….?

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          Wrong again fractional troll. Projecting your jealousy again?? You forget I’m an Indy, not a Repub.

          Pelosi didn’t even have the courage to make history, albeit stupid history, in the House. She ran away with a cadaver instead.

          The Dems got a clean continuing resolution and 45 days to negotiate budget bills from McCarthy. Nobody is going to get nothing until the Repubs choose another Speaker, and that’s not going to be quick. You can bet whoever they choose is going to be a lot harder to deal with than McCarthy.

          All the Dems had to do was to sit on their hands and Gaetz’s tempest would have drowned in his teapot. But no, they didn’t want to serve the country, they wanted to screw McCarthy, and they voted unanimously to do it. Congrats or something.

          Hope they’re happy with what they’re going to get which is a whole lot of nothing, likely a shutdown, and then budget bills they are going to hate.

          Comes under the heading of be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            When Nancy ran against McCarthy for Speakership in 2019 do you know how many Republicans voted for her… 0… can’t see why you would think any Democrats would vote for him.

          2. …can’t see why you would think any Democrats would vote for him.

            Strategy. According to you, democrats know how to govern, whereas the republicans can only engage in toxic behavior that damages the country.

            Of course, you must not really believe that or you would not have made that statement.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            not up to the Dems to rescue the GOP from their own inability/refusal to agree among themselves are how to carry out their role in Congress.

            NO matter what the Dems do, the GOP is going to be right back at the same problem with the hard right holding any would-be speaker hostage to their demands to get their votes.

            Dems can’t fix that.

          4. Dems can’t fix that.

            I did not say they could, nor did I say they should.

            The word I used was strategy.

            As ‘patriotic democrats’ you provide enough votes to keep McCarthy in his position for the near-term. It’s for “the good of the country” – it prevents chaos in the nation’s economy by preventing chaos in the U.S. House of Reprehensibles.

            Your selfless act has saved countless people from losing their paychecks and benefits.

            The press eats it up, touts your heroic actions again and again and again over the course of the next year, and you guarantee yourselves control of both the house and senate after the 2024 elections.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The Dems DID engage in “strategy” and they decided (right or wrong) that McCarthy was not going to be someone they could work with, trust, to find compromise. He gave up too much to the hard right to be a trusted person in negotiations and compromises (in their opinion).

            The GOP itself has to reconcile how they are going to deal with the hard right so that when they
            talk to Dems about agreements, the Dems can trust agreements that will not be gone back on.

            There is no guarantee that the next speaker won’t be undone by the same hard-right if they can and that goes to who the speaker might be and whether the Dems will support undoing the hard right influence. Come up with a speaker the Dems will support.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            More likely, the more the Republicans meltdown (into the bed they made themselves after all), the better the Dems will do.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            These are the SAME Republicans that are trying to impeach the POTUS, go after Hunter Biden, go after the FBI and the Military !

            yeah, I really “feel” for them and their “needs”….

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            So Dems now have to govern the Republican party as well since they are incapable of governing themselves…?? Really, you are going to jump on the “Dems are to blame for Republican disarray” bandwagon? What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions (or in this case) votes.

            But while we are on the topic, can you think of any example where Dems were divided and Reps acted to bail them out?

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            So Dems now have to govern the Republican party as well since they are incapable of governing themselves…?? Really, you are going to jump on the “Dems are to blame for Republican disarray” bandwagon? What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions (or in this case) votes.

            But while we are on the topic, can you think of any example where Dems were divided and Reps acted to bail them out?

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            So Dems now have to govern the Republican party as well since they are incapable of governing themselves…?? Really, you are going to jump on the “Dems are to blame for Republican disarray” bandwagon? What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions (or in this case) votes.

            But while we are on the topic, can you think of any example where Dems were divided and Reps acted to bail them out?

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            that crazy Nancy… 😉

          12. Lefty665 Avatar

            They did not have to do anything. If they had sat on their hands the dingbats would have gotten 8 votes and McCarthy would have remained Speaker. By unanimously voting to remove McCarthy the Dems voted against the country and for chaos. Hope they like what they get, they proactively earned it.

          13. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Hmmmm… I don’t remember Republicans not voting at all when it was Nancy on the ballot…

          14. Lefty665 Avatar

            Uh, they voted for their own Speaker when Nancy was on the ballot, and they lost.

            All the Dems (over 200) voted with 8 Repub dingbats to dump McCarthy, they had no candidate of their own. The Dems created this chaos. They are unfit to govern.

            Just more phony trollish nonsense. Surely you can do better.

          15. Lefty665 Avatar

            Uh, they voted for their own Speaker when Nancy was on the ballot, and they lost.

            All the Dems (over 200) voted with 8 Repub dingbats to dump McCarthy, they had no candidate of their own. The Dems created this chaos. They are unfit to govern.

            Just more phony trollish nonsense. Surely you can do better.

          16. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            If McCarthy had approached the Democrats and offered to compromise on some issues, he may have gotten some help. But, wait, he did agree to a budget deal as part of the debt limit vote and then reneged on it. So, why should Democrats trust him on anything? But, I agree with you. Enough Democrats should have voted “present” to enable McCarthy to survive. That would have saved us, at least, temporarily from the chaos that is now in the House. Of course, it would just have inflamed the Bob Goods of the House even more.

          17. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            And are we back to square one with the hard right group demanding concessions to get their vote for speaker?

            At some point, the Dems and the more Moderate GOP need to understand that Congress will be held hostage as long as they won’t act in a bipartisan way to right that ship, IMO , of course.

          18. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            What, bipartisanship?! The Republicans working with the Democrats? Lord forbid!

          19. What, bipartisanship?! The Republicans working with the Democrats? Lord forbid!

            That cuts both ways, sir.

          20. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s actually the way the Founding Fathers designed our system of governance but it DOES …REQUIRE compromise and the GOP can’t even seem to compromise within it’s own ranks these days as clearl evidenced by current events!

          21. What, bipartisanship?! The Republicans working with the Democrats? Lord forbid!

            That cuts both ways, sir.

          22. McCarthy crossed the aisle to pass the stopgap and keep the government from shutting down.

            In return, the Democrats just voted to oust him as speaker. So much for bipartisanship.

          23. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            he did no favors AND he planted a landmine for Ukraine!

            who would a shutdown have hurt? Not the Dems!

            The GOP strategy seems to have been to let the govt twist and turn until they see how the elections turn out.

            No?

          24. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “If McCarthy had approached the Democrats and offered to compromise on some issues, he may have gotten some help.”

            That cuts both ways, I seem to recall Democrats shutting Republicans out when they were in power.

            Republican’s are weak and always cave to Democrats, while the Democrats do not reciprocate.

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/as-shutdoom-looms-pelosi-says-she-opposes-budget-deal-if-theres-no-promise-of-dreamer-vote

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Sounds like a bit of jealousy speaking there… fact is Dems could govern under Nancy, Reps can’t under… who is in charge now….?

  2. Teddy007 Avatar

    No one should take the Republicans seriously on reducing spending until they come up with spending cuts that will occur in the current or next fiscal year. Planning on cutting spending in the future never works and is one of the reasons that the national debt is so high. The other is that Americans have gotten used to not paying full cost of the government that they demand like much of the world’s voters.

    1. Stanwood Avatar

      Americans and especially corporations have gotten used to not paying the full cost of the government.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar

      With McCarthy out, you can bet that hard line cuts are coming. Ain’t no moderate going to be the next Speaker.

      You forget that Clinton’s last two budgets were in surplus and the National Debt was projected to be paid off by 2018. Duhbya “fixed” that with multiple tax cuts and put wars on the credit card with China. The huge and growing National Debt predictably followed.

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        First, most of the private held debt is held by Americans. And Japan actually owns as much U.S. federal debt than China. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-owns-a-record-2121-trillion-of-us-debt-2018-08-21

        And a the U.S. was going to run a deficit in FY2001 whether Gore or Bush was in office. And 9/11 threw everything off. However, much like the Democrats start new spending programs in the first year of a new administration, Republicans have a debt financed tax cut in the first year. Remember. the Obama Administration added as much to the national debt as the GW Bush Administration did. And Clinton only had balanced budget because the Republicans in Congress refuses to start any new programs while Clinton refused to start any new wars.

  3. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    As someone in Bob Good’s district. . .in a small community that very much needs major infrastructure assistance. . .I really wish Good would stop rocking the boat.

    Even given the best case for their motivations, the small minority standing on principle regarding budget are alienating their districts, making it impossible for them to receive a small share of the funding that Congress spreads around. Bob Good is standing on principle while this district suffers.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      How much infrastructure will you get after the special interests first skim their money off the top? Tysons landowners and developers got the Silver Line funded even though it did not qualify for funding under federal standards. All the electeds, both D & R, fell in line. To boot, then Governor Tim Kaine agreed to pay the State’s share of the project by giving the Dulles Airport Access Road to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that raised tolls on the Dulles Toll Road to fund the Silver Line.

      And then there are labor unions that are favored in the legislation. Rather than take the low bid, the project will need to have union contractors. Less infrastructure for the money.

      The federal legislative process is organized crime.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “As someone in Bob Good’s district. . .in a small community that very much needs major infrastructure assistance. . .I really wish Good would stop rocking the boat.”

      The Federal Government supplies nothing to your everyday life. It could cease to exist and your life would not be impacted in any manner. The state is the one who should be maintaining the infrastructure as it is under their purview, using the tax dollars we supply them.

      “Even given the best case for their motivations, the small minority standing on principle regarding budget are alienating their districts, making it impossible for them to receive a small share of the funding that Congress spreads around”

      What you just described is having principles, which is lacking in the State and Federal Government. Just because a plethora of others are doing something, doesn’t make it right.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Folks in rural Virginia will be the beneficiaries of this federal action:

        https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/6/warner-announces-1-4-billion

      2. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        ” The state is the one who should be maintaining the infrastructure as it is under their purview, using the tax dollars we supply them.”

        Historically, Virginia has relied far more on Federal funding for infrastructure than most other states.

        Virginia, she’s a welfare queen.

        Given that, I can understand the confusion that a Virginian may have about whose responsibility it is to fund infrastructure. Many of these confused Virginians are in elected office in Richmond.

      3. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        ” The state is the one who should be maintaining the infrastructure as it is under their purview, using the tax dollars we supply them.”

        Historically, Virginia has relied far more on Federal funding for infrastructure than most other states.

        Virginia, she’s a welfare queen.

        Given that, I can understand the confusion that a Virginian may have about whose responsibility it is to fund infrastructure. Many of these confused Virginians are in elected office in Richmond.

      4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Folks in rural Virginia will be the beneficiaries of this federal action:

        https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/6/warner-announces-1-4-billion

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          That’s a nice little campaign snippet you’ve provided, but it doesn’t impact anyone’s every day life.

          You might wish to talk to FPOTUS Obama about those shovel ready jobs they allocated money for and how they never materialized.

          https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/isps-want-to-be-utilities-but-only-to-get-more-money-from-the-government/

          https://www.techdirt.com/2020/01/28/look-more-giant-isps-taking-taxpayer-money-unfinished-networks/

      5. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        ” The state is the one who should be maintaining the infrastructure as it is under their purview, using the tax dollars we supply them.”

        Historically, Virginia has relied far more on Federal funding for infrastructure than most other states.

        Virginia, she’s a welfare queen.

        Given that, I can understand the confusion that a Virginian may have about whose responsibility it is to fund infrastructure. Many of these confused Virginians are in elected office in Richmond.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          It becomes hard for people when they don’t understand Federalism. Which in essence as I’m sure you’re aware, that if the Fed shutdown, it has zero impact on the daily life of the people. We just simply can’t get into another war at that moment in time.

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Ahh … Bidenomics. The Dow is down 500 points today and now is lower than it was on January 1. Of course, that decline dooesn’t ebven take Bideflation into account. Why is the Dow down 500? Interest rates as reflected in Treasiry yields. And why are interest rates skyrocketing? To fight inflation. And why does inflation need to be fought? Excess spending.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Why is the Dow down 500?”

      Because job growth under Biden is too good… 🤷‍♂️

      1. Lefty665 Avatar

        Oh! You are so funny, thank you for the best laugh I’ve had in awhile:)

        The second half of that punch line must be … and because all the illegals suppress American workers wages.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Nope, worker wages are up!

          1. Lefty665 Avatar

            Wages are up less than inflation, so real wages are down. Bribemnomics at work. You made another phony trollish talking point.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Actually, US Real Average Weekly Earnings is at a current level of 379.87 – up from 378.86 one year ago.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          That’s not one of the talking points he’s been supplied, so you’re not likely to get a coherent answer.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    They’re not serious about the budget nor immigration IMO.

    It’s conservative virtue signaling… posture voting.

    3/4 of the budget is defense and health care.

    we simply don’t want to pay for it because no GOP in his/her right mind is going to vote to cut Medicare or even Obamacare. Some might vote to cut Medicaid… but in the end… to actually balance the budget, with no cuts to Defense, health care would have to be essentially gutted.

    We cut taxes during the Trump admin. We did not cut spending. As a result, the cut taxes are being “funded” by selling treasury notes.

    So the “cuts” they are talking about come nowhere near to what would have to be done… it’s just red meat for the “no tax” crowd with zero chance of it actually balancing the budget.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      And Trump’s tax cuts?

      The amount of tax money taken in by the Feds went up every year Trump was in office.

      Some cut.

      https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        the money taken in was not enough to offset the tax cuts… by a long shot… ” 05.16.23
        Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion to the Deficit, According to CBO”
        https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/extending-trump-tax-cuts-would-add-35-trillion-to-the-deficit-according-to-cbo

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          Then why didn’t Democrats reverse the law when they had both houses and Biden as President?

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Ever heard of a filibuster?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Ever heard of a filibuster?”

            Yeah, the only problem with that statement (excuse), is they didn’t even try so therefore there was no filibuster used.

            Is it hard always excusing one party while blaming the other?

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The Republicans aren’t serious about illegal immigration? You are hallucinating again, Larry.

      Here’s an interesting recent article from CBS …

      Note the graph.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-unlawful-crossings-along-southern-border-reach-yearly-high/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        yes. What the law says is that if they make it to US soil, they ARE entitled to a hearing on asylum.

        How would you change that? Are you SERIOUS about it or just want to talk about it?

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          That was the same law that existed under Trump.

          Look at the numbers, Larry.

          Bozo Biden ended the Remain in Mexico policy of Donald Trump.

          Illegal immigration has skyrocketed under Biden.

          But not to worry … Kamala Harris has been named “Border Czar”. I’m sure she’ll attend to the issue just as soon as she gets through her latest cackling fit.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the courts have ruled that “remain in Mexico” is illegal. If they can make it to US Soil, they are, by law, entitled to a hearing.

            ya’ll are not serious. THis is all political gamesmanship for low information folks.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            worth reading.. to really understand where the immigrants are going and working……..

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d4b1a081619ee349d272566cdf14ea050c4050290150272be32b506f8d65550.png

          3. You only need to post your NYT propaganda once.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I can provide other sources that deal with the same issues. We don’t do E-verify and we don’t do guest worker programs like Canada does , primarily because the businesses which benefit from illegal labor are opposed to it and most of them are GOP!

            I support total E-VERIFY, no exceptions. And I support a REAL guest worker program. AND I support quick deportation to anyone who is found to be in violation of it as well as prosecution of the employers.

            I support SERIOUS and real actions not the current bogus virtue signaling and kabuki theatre.

          5. I’ve always supported going after the employers who give jobs to illegal immigrants. To date, neither the democrats nor the republicans have done that despite both having ample opportunities.

            I support SERIOUS and real actions not the current bogus virtue signaling and kabuki theatre.

            Correction: You support SERIOUS and real actions not the current bogus virtue signaling and kabuki theatre from republicans

            Bogus virtue signaling and kabuki theatre are fine with you if it’s presented by a democrat.

          6. ya’ll are not serious. THis is all political gamesmanship for low information folks.

            Neither is Biden. A phone app that requires asylum-seekers to “register” before they cross the border? And you say republicans are engaging in political gamesmanship. That’s a perfect example of accusing your opponent of that which you are guilty.

            Biden’s phone app requiring “registration” prior to entering the country was no more legal under the law you keep referencing than was “remain in Mexico”. And he (and you) knew it when he announced it.

            It is laughable for you to try to argue that Joe Biden is serious about controlling our borders. The only person in Washington less serious about it than Biden is Kamala Harris – and that is only because she is a walking, babbling, cackling joke on every subject.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Give Biden credit, he TRIED with the phone app to require registration with sanctions if people came in without registering.

            You can’t say he did not try.

            What would you have him do instead – that he CAN do without Congress and a change in laws?

            re: ” The only person in Washington less serious about it than Biden is Kamala Harris – and that is only because she is a walking, babbling, cackling joke on every subject.”

            This is why I say those who say this are not serious.

            Proof Positive that this is not about immigration at all.. but demonizing people as individuals… so much for “serious”.

          8. Assign more administrative and judicial assets so that asylum hearings can be fast-tracked. Weed out those who have no chance of qualifying for asylum and send them out of the country at their first hearing.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I totally agree. That takes MORE funding that comes from Congress.

          10. Or shifting existing funding.

          11. Not demonizing. I do not hate Kamal Harris.

            However, she has, through her own words and actions, proven that she is entirely ill-equipped to be in charge of anything more complicated than a garden party. She is not very smart. She is a light-weight and cannot be taken seriously. She is the Dan Quayle of the democrat party.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no… you’re making what amounts to a personal attack on her. She may well be equivalent to Dan Quayle.. but the point is that the Biden administration is composed of a lot of people beyond Biden and Harris and they would stay in place even if Biden goes down and Harris takes over. The basic policies of the administration would not go away and we’d have none of the nonsense that would come from the GOP candidate.

          13. Dream on, dreamer.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            when you focus on ONE individual as if they are the administration.. the only time that really is true is with Trump!

          15. The subject of the thread was our immigration and border security problems.

            Biden put Kamala Harris in charge of our immigration and border security problems. She is the individual responsible for coming up with solutions. Her individual leadership (or lack thereof) will have a significant effect on whether or not any viable solutions will be offered.

          16. The subject of the thread was our immigration and border security problems.

            Biden put Kamala Harris in charge of our immigration and border security problems. She is the individual responsible for coming up with solutions. Her individual leadership (or lack thereof) will have a significant effect on whether or not any viable solutions will be offered.

          17. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            JUNE 30, 2022 – your reference

            July 25, 2023, 4:20 PM EDT – the truth today

            Judge rules against Biden immigration policy, calling it ‘invalid’

            Do all conservatives and Trumpers continue to “lie” about this?

            geeze!

          18. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            JUNE 30, 2022 – your reference

            July 25, 2023, 4:20 PM EDT – the truth today

            Judge rules against Biden immigration policy, calling it ‘invalid’

            Do all conservatives and Trumpers continue to tell whoppers about this?

            geeze!

            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-rules-biden-immigration-policy-calling-invalid-rcna96272

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Oh, even the libtwits are now crying about Biden’s incompetence with regard to the border:

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-migrants-jb-pritzker-white-house-chicago/?intcid=CNR-01-0623

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          My understanding of the law is that if a migrant makes it to US soil, he cannot be deported until he is accorded a hearing to determine if he is entitled to asylum.

          Many of them these days are not Mexicans. THey are Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans.. Ecuadorians who all know if they can set foot on US soil, the are guaranteed a hearing.

          Biden did try to keep them out with a phone app that required them to register before they crossed and if they did not, they could be barred for 5 years and deported immediately. The courts overruled this.

          1. Many of them these days are not Mexicans. THey are Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans.. Ecuadorians who all know if they can set foot on US soil, the are guaranteed a hearing.

            What does them not being Mexican have to do with anything? Mexicans are entitled to the same protections offered other would-be immigrants.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It has to do with how we would “return” migrants from other countries (Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans.. Ecuadorians ) that we turn down on asylum. Do we just put them back across the border with Mexico?

          3. Do we just put them back across the border with Mexico?

            If that is the border they crossed, then yes. And back across the Canadian border if that is how they illegally entered.

            How is it that someone from Cuba can illegally cross into this country from Mexico? How did they get into Mexico? Why did Mexico not deport them back to whenever they entered Mexico from?

            If we send enough people who have illegally entered from Mexico back to Mexico maybe the Mexican government will decide to stop being an illegal pass-through for people wanting to illegally enter the United States.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We can just force people back across the border even if Mexico doesn’t agree? 😉 I don’t entirely disagree about
            the complicity of Mexico but I don’t think we can just push people back across either or if we were going to , then
            again, we’d need a law, not something a POTUS of Gov can do… heck not even the Texas govt sez that!

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “The Republican Party retained their majority in both the House and the Senate, and, with inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017, attained an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 109th Congress in 2005.“

      And no immigration reform… No. they will only use it as a cudgel.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yes, and the reason why is the same reason we see what’s going on with the GOP
        right now today, this minute. They could NOT agree even among themselves what to do about immigration and STILL cannot. So.. they blame the Dems naturally! The divide in the GOP is as big as the divide between the GOP and the Dems! The hard right will not compromise. If something is actually going to be done with immigration – it won’t be Biden but a a group of Dems and GOP in Congress.

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          You do know the House passed a bill in 2023 but it got nowhere in the Senate due to the 60 vote threshold, right?

          https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-ready-tough-border-control-bill-us-house-passage-2023-05-11/

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I did not. THanks.. It basically outlaws all asylum, right?

          2. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Says you have to stay outside the country or be detained. What the Administration is doing is letting everyone in and letting them disperse with court dates years from now. It’s a game being played and it’s destroying our country, just look at what is going on in our cities. We are being overwhelmed

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Right… but what to the current asylum laws say that Biden can ignore? I AGREE with you that we ARE being overwhelmed but have you looked at the current asylum laws that handcuff the POTUS?

            have you read this?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d4b1a081619ee349d272566cdf14ea050c4050290150272be32b506f8d65550.png

            Basically what it says is that those who get into the country and are entitled to hearings, work illegally with no protections that other workers get.

            Employers hire them.

            And the migrants KNOW IT! AND they communicate it back to their relatives who then also come!

            Until we stop employers from hiring them, they will keep on coming!

          4. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            There are real issues here, and its not going to be dealt with by one party, its going to require both parties and leaders.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I agree. New law is needed and it can’t pass without both parties and significant compromise. Those who are wishing for a strongman leader to dictate regardless of Congress and Courts are lost. This is also a worldwide problem. We got our border. Other countries are struggling with similar issues.

        2. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          Illegal immigration has skyrocket since Biden came to office, why?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s the SAME immigration LAW that says if someone gets into the US, even illegally, they are entitled to a hearing on their asylum status.

            POTUS cannot change that.

            Trump tried and the courts overruled.

            Biden tried and the courts overruled.

            The immigrants KNOW we cannot stop them and so they come.

            Until, we change the law, they will continue.

            Biden can’t change the law , Congress has to.

            But EVEN WHEN the GOP had majorities, they could not agree among themselves on changes to the law.

          2. You did not answer his question.

      2. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        Don’t recall seeing immigration reform the first two years of the Obama or Biden administration? Why was that?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Who’s obsessed with it? Obama did healthcare, Biden did the economy.

          1. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Biden did the economy? By ramming through spending plans and running up inflation? Don’t recall Democrats reversing the Trump tax cuts they obsessed about and still do, but they certainly could have.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Like Munger said, “if he can be optimistic about the future at 99, the rest of us can take a little inflation.”

          3. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Inflation is like a cancer, destroying earning power and people’s budgets. Wealthy people can get through it fine, many even profit from it and thrive on it. But for those struggling to make ends meet it is devastating. This my friend is an example of why so many hate politicians and people who say stupid things like that.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg

            More like the weather than a cancer… it’s just there.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the other thing is that raising interest rates to curb inflation also hurts the unwealthy!

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Heard some (insert term of choice) say that unemployment was too low. We needed real suffering to curb inflation.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            there is no way without some suffering, yes. Folks looking for painless remedies … and/or blaming others…

          8. Lefty665 Avatar

            And Bribemomics is working so well, inflation is gone, interest rates are low, groceries and gas are cheap… oh wait, Bribem did the economy like Debbie did Dallas.

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Gas. I’ve paid more. Paid over $3 in the 90s. Adjust that.

            It’s life. People be greedy. Adapt or melt like a snowflake.

          10. “It’s life. People be greedy. Adapt or melt like a snowflake.”

            Nope. It didn’t just happen out of the blue.

            Runaway inflation was as predictable as gravity. Coming out of the pandemic, we needed to start applying the brakes. Instead, Biden put the petal to the metal.

          11. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What do you call runaway, and how long does it have to be there?

          12. I’m particularly bothered by the cost of mortgages. How will young people buy homes?

            Rates were less than 3 percent when Biden took office.

            When we once again see 30 year mortgages in the 3 to 4 percent range. That’s when Biden’s runaway inflation will be over. I’m not holding my breath.

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            That’ a fair criticism but again it’s the Fed, not the POTUS that sets the rates which, in turn, does cause harm to activities that are affected by interest rates.

            It’s actually by design to increase interest costs to tamp down inflation.

            POTUS doesn’t do that.

          14. Housing expert: 8% mortgage rate ‘does not seem unlikely’ after rates remain at 23-year high

            https://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-expert-8-mortgage-rate-does-not-seem-unlikely-after-rates-remain-at-23-year-high-160009869.html

            So what’s Biden doing to bring down inflation?

            How about joining the picket line to support auto workers demanding 32 hour workweek AND 40% increase in pay.

            Yah, that should help…

            To make US vehicles less affordable for consumers

            Can’t afford a home or a new car. That’s Bidenomics.

          15. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What’s the current inflation rate, there Nate? 3.7X%. The 23 year average is 2.44%.

            “ The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 11% in 1982, then declined to 5% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988. ”

            And every Republican thinks those were the Golden Years…

          16. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            tax cuts and pandemic spending led to the inflation.

            In both cases, it was approved by Congress.

            The POTUS cannot spend money without approval of Congress.

            And I believe this graph is a fair representation of what has happened to inflation in the last 2 years or so:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f622b30ccb1a81f684589b52c604b4b6ce8be0ddb8d59c6c69aeccdcb758459.png

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Inflation_data.webp

            “Gasoline prices are slowly pulling back from 2023 highs last month. But as crude continues to pull back, drivers can expect fuel costs to drop like “wet feathers,” says one oil analyst.

            “Right now, if you are a gasoline shopper, you can find gasoline for less than $2.99/gallon in perhaps half of all states,” Tom Kloza, head of energy analysis at OPIS, told Yahoo Finance.

            “We’re looking at a $0.25 to $0.50-per-gallon drop in retail that is virtually certain,” he noted. “It’s a glacial pace but it will be quite noticeable.”

            Gasoline futures (RB=F) are forecasting the drop, down about $0.43 in the last week. The current national average for retail gasoline is $3.77 versus $3.84 a week ago, according to AAA.”

            https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gas-prices-to-drop-like-wet-feathers-analyst-says-163343166.html

    4. “They’re not serious about the budget nor immigration IMO.”

      Not true. Please read my earlier post on this topic.

      Republicans are serious about both, but a few extremist Republicans including Bob Good of Virginia want to overplay our hand, such that we get nothing on either count.

      Speaker McCarthy worked with Democrats to avert a shutdown, and they rewarded his bipartisan efforts by joining the most radical element of the the Republican Party and unanimously voting to oust him as Speaker.

      So much for working with Democrats for the good of the country.

      What does that say about the Democrats?

      While McCarthy enjoyed support from most Republicans in his slim majority, eight Republican detractors — many of the same hard-right holdouts who tried to stop him from becoming speaker in January — essentially forced him out.

      It was a stunning moment for McCarthy, a punishment fueled by growing grievances but sparked by his weekend decision to work with Democrats to keep the federal government open rather than risk a shutdown.

      https://apnews.com/article/mccarthy-gaetz-speaker-motion-to-vacate-congress-327e294a39f8de079ef5e4abfb1fa555

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        You blame Dems for what the hard-right in the GOP did to GOP party itself? Until the GOP can compromise in it’s own ranks without taking down each other… it’s not about the Dems!

        Even then, much of the GOP beyond the hard right is aligned with Trump who has said he will
        do to govt what the hard right has done to Congress!

        1. So Democrats aren’t even responsible for their own votes.

          Okay, got it.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            what? They’re NOT RESPONSIBLE for what the GOP did to itself! Why are the Dems responsible for “saving” the chaos the GOP has done to itself?

  6. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    A vote underway on the floor at this instance makes this kinda out of date anyway….

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Kinda fun. Those taking a walk may save him. But the motion to table is now failing. The Ds are helping Gaetz. After Griffith and Cline did, of course.

  7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    And now a brief commercial break from the weary world of Washington politics.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGKqH26xlg

    1. Thanks. What a wonderful song by a wonderful musician.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        And now we return to our regularly scheduled programing, the Congress of the United States.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPeePg2N6QM

  8. Not Today Avatar
    Not Today

    Did these folks vote to vacate the chair and fail to govern the nation or no? Who gives a rip about anything but the Republicans’’ failure to govern on this day?

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      Yes, because we must – MUST – continue to spend $7 trillion while taking in $5 trillion…in perpetuity.
      Financing $33 trillion at 5% is $1.65 trillion in interest alone. Every year. And rates are going higher.
      I have a good proposal. If Congress does not pass a budget on time, then no pay for them and all of the federal workforce, with no back pay. 25 years of continuing resolutions is a Uniparty sham. also, no more pensions for Congresscritters. Make them do a 403 like other govt workers.
      Suppose you run a public company. Would the Board approve not having a budget…for 25 years? How about for never coming close to hitting your budget? Would the Feds be all over that public company? So why don’t we expect at least that from these “public servants?”

      1. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Speechless. Your ‘belief’ that public servants=435 members of Congress (and not summer day camp leaders, zoo keepers, accountants, and sanitation workers in DC) is why the U.S. is going to hell in a hand basket.

      2. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Speechless. Your ‘belief’ that public servants=435 members of Congress (and not summer day camp leaders, zoo keepers, accountants, and sanitation workers in DC) is why the U.S. is going to hell in a hand basket.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Right. Address spending $7 trillion while taking in $5 trillion. Those 435 have the power of the purse. Then the Senate has to pass something. Then it is to get ironed out and a bill to be signed by the President. And I don’t exactly believe your poor widdle “public servants” are all that great either. Pampered and overpaid and largely unaccountable. Sanitation workers in DC…they have a lot to do with the budget. How about the police you Lefties hate? Do you sympathize with them?
          The point – obviously lost on you because UVA has not taught you how to think – is that there needs to be accountability for failure. If the Congresscritters (actually 535) can’t pass a budget and the (mostly coddled, overpaid, unfireable) fed workers don’t get paid with loss of pay, those Congresscritters will likely lose their jobs and some of the fed employees might go get a real job.

      3. Rep. Smucker is a cosponsor of the bipartisan No Budget, No Pay Act, H.R. 5653, which would withhold salaries for Members of Congress in the event of a government shutdown or lapse in appropriations. Smucker believes that Members of Congress should not be paid if members of our United States Armed Forces are not being paid. Smucker will also instruct the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives to withhold his pay for the duration of a government shutdown.

        https://smucker.house.gov/media/press-releases/smucker-supports-spending-reduction-and-border-security-act

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          this seems to be endemic to conservative ways of “thinking” which is along the lines of ” If you don’t do this I’m gonna hurt you” !

          geeze!

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            So please tell us the brilliant Communist position, Larry. Do you spend every year40% more than your income? Are you a trust fund baby consuming your inherited capital? Come on. Try offering a solution instead of your inane comments about conservatives.

          2. Now THAT is funny.

            “If you don’t do this I’m gonna hurt you” is the modus operandi of the democrat party.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    McCarthy — proving once again, lie down with fleas, wake up with dogs.

  10. The article’s author, Scott Dreyer, is either ignorant of recent events, or deliberately deceptive. It tells only half of the story, and in my opinion is a misrepresentation of how we got here.

    The CR which fully funded the government for the next 45 days was necessary because a tiny minority of Republicans would not support the previous stopgap that had been negotiated. The previous stopgap would have reduced funding levels, increased border security, and established a commission to look at how to achieve responsible spending levels going forward.

    House Republicans on early Friday rolled out their new plan for a short-term spending bill that would stave off a government shutdown.

    The plan, dubbed the Spending Reduction and Border Security Act, would extend funding through the end of October but impose across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent — with exemptions for national defense, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, and for funding designated disaster relief.

    The House short-term measure also includes a chunk of the party’s signature border bill, known as H.R. 2, which would boost wall construction, hiring of border agents and restrict access to asylum, among other measures.

    The bill also calls for the establishment of a fiscal commission that would identify solutions to achieve what it called a “sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio” and to balance the federal budget. It would recommend changes to improve solvency for some programs, such as Medicare and Social Security.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4229637-house-gop-to-consider-stopgap-to-to-avert-shutdown-that-includes-deep-spending-cuts/

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      30% across the board cuts for Medicare Part B?

      Medicare Part A and Social Security have zero to do with the budget.

      They are funded from FICA taxes.

      It needs to be reformed to get it back to full solvency.. but what happens to it has little to do with the budget itself.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      30% across the board cuts for Medicare Part B?

      Medicare Part A and Social Security have zero to do with the budget.

      They are funded from FICA taxes.

      It needs to be reformed to get it back to full solvency.. but what happens to it has little to do with the budget itself.

      1. Did you read what I wrote? It’s a stopgap to keep the government running for 30 days. Changes to Medicare would require legislation agreed to by House and Senate and signed by the President.

        Even if we had NO stopgap, Medicare would continue as is.

        Larry – We’ve had shutdowns many times before. Was Medicare impacted?

        Was it?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I did read what you wrote. StopGap kicks the can… You cannot continue Medicare the way it is if you only want to cut spending and try to balance the budget.

          Yes, we’ve had many shutdowns without impacting Medicare because we won’t cut it so we continue to add to the deficit. It got worse, when we added MORE tax cuts , which increased the deficit even more!

          Cuts to Medicare will not work politically. Many who vote to do it would be booted next election!

          The way that Medicare “works” that you may already be aware of. Medicare Part A is funded from FICA taxes. Medicare Part B is funded in the mandatory budget with the govt paying 75% of the premiums and the recipients paying 25%. It’s means tested. The base tier pays about $160 a month (and that’s adjust annually). Folks with higher incomes pay more.

          So when you “cut” Medicare, you would increase the premiums… and/or change the 20% co-pay, etc… make it more expensive for some.

          Are you familiar with Tax Expenditures? They are essentially tax subidies. The biggest one is the tax on money spent on employer-provided health insurance. It’s not taxed at all.

          1. Thanks for essentially admitting that your previous comment was a total misrepresentation.

            You need not explain how Medicare works, or how taxes work, etc.

            Let me explain how stopgaps work. They aren’t great, but they are better than a shutdown.
            They are also better than the CRs of the past in that Congress has started to do its job of passing individual appropriate bills. They will continue to do so, but they need a little more time to complete them.

            As for the long-term issues related to tax levels and spending, the Republican proposal I highlighted would have created a realistic way to approach the subject.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Thanks for essentially admitting that your previous comment was a total misrepresentation”

            how so? explain.

            ” Let me explain how stopgaps work.”

            how?

            ” As for the long-term issues related to tax levels and spending, the Republican proposal I highlighted would have created a realistic way to approach the subject.”

            how?

            you’ve made pronouncements out the wazoo here…

            how about some meat on the bones?

          3. “how so? explain.”

            You suggested that the Republican stopgap would have cut Medicare. That’s horseshit.

            Your other points are also already discussed.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            where did I say that? who is misrepresenting here?

          5. Your words:
            “30% across the board cuts for Medicare Part B?”

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            and I said that IF someone WAS going to be actually serious they’d have to talk about in those kinds of specifics
            rather than talking about generic “cuts” of no particular scope and scale… as what you are proposing to “cut”.

            If you ARE serious, then you start talking about specifics… not just posturing about “cuts”.

          7. You have made critical comments about stopgap legislation to allow government to continue without interruption, but have suggested no alternative. We are where we are. How would you have proceeded? Shut the government down until complex bills are debated, written and posted for sufficient time to allow our elected officials to vote? Pass whatever someone proposes without reading it. What exactly?

            You want me to suggest specifics, but on the very subject you brought up, you have no specifics.

            Larry: “I don’t know that I’d eliminate them outright but means test them and phase them in over time and inflation-adjusted AND combine them with increases in the cost of Medicare and FICA taxes so there is “equal” pain across the board for most.”

            Discussions with you are seldom productive. I think I’ll work in the yard instead.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You can develop a budget while you continue continuing resolutions then switch over when it’s ready.

            “Larry: “I don’t know that I’d eliminate them outright but means test them and phase them in over time and inflation-adjusted AND combine them with increases in the cost of Medicare and FICA taxes so there is “equal” pain across the board for most.”

            Discussions with you are seldom productive. I think I’ll work in the yard instead.”

            that’s the way the tax code currently works now for a lot of things.

            As said before, we cannot get their with cuts alone. That’s a reality. People who say they can are not serious and
            may do better at yard work! 😉

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Here’s what I DID SAY:

            ” StopGap kicks the can… You cannot continue Medicare the way it is if you only want to cut spending and try to balance the budget.

            Yes, we’ve had many shutdowns without impacting Medicare because we won’t cut it so we continue to add to the deficit. It got worse, when we added MORE tax cuts , which increased the deficit even more!”

            again, stopgap kicks the can… and the “next” opportunity to cut would inevitably involved Medicare… so it gets put off again.. until we’re back at stopgaps…

            The folks that want to shut down the govt over spending.. won’t address the cuts that need to be made because they know if they actually do cut Medicare, they will get booted.

            so.. we’re in this endless cycle of threatening shutdowns if we don’t “cut” then when the opportunity to “cut” is there.. they do nothing!

            This is why I say they are not serious!

            What is their proposal to actually cut?

            Can we get there with ONLY cuts?

            If we are really serious, we admit that cuts alone are not going to do it.

          10. So? Which ones of those would you eliminate?

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I don’t know that I’d eliminate them outright but means test them and phase them in over time and inflation-adjusted AND combine them with increases in the cost of Medicare and FICA taxes so there is “equal” pain across the board for most.

  11. The article’s author, Scott Dreyer, is either ignorant of recent events, or deliberately deceptive. It tells only half of the story, and in my opinion is a misrepresentation of how we got here.

    The CR which fully funded the government for the next 45 days was necessary because a tiny minority of Republicans would not support the previous stopgap that had been negotiated. The previous stopgap would have reduced funding levels, increased border security, and established a commission to look at how to achieve responsible spending levels going forward.

    House Republicans on early Friday rolled out their new plan for a short-term spending bill that would stave off a government shutdown.

    The plan, dubbed the Spending Reduction and Border Security Act, would extend funding through the end of October but impose across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent — with exemptions for national defense, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, and for funding designated disaster relief.

    The House short-term measure also includes a chunk of the party’s signature border bill, known as H.R. 2, which would boost wall construction, hiring of border agents and restrict access to asylum, among other measures.

    The bill also calls for the establishment of a fiscal commission that would identify solutions to achieve what it called a “sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio” and to balance the federal budget. It would recommend changes to improve solvency for some programs, such as Medicare and Social Security.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4229637-house-gop-to-consider-stopgap-to-to-avert-shutdown-that-includes-deep-spending-cuts/

  12. Teddy007 Avatar

    Maybe someone should ask Gov. Youngkin how he feels being the same political party as Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz if one is worried about dumb Republicans.

    Also, it is amazing how much of politics boils down to personal grudges.

  13. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Rather than threaten shutdowns as leverage for “cuts” why not draw up a budget and present it to the Senate and do the process for arriving at a compromise?

    I don’t see how we can arrive at a balanced budget and maintain our spending for defense and healthcare without increasing taxes.

    If those who want a balance budget want to do it with cuts but not to defense, only healthcare, it would have severe impacts to the poor and senior citizens who would surely let those who voted to do it at the ballot box.

    One way or the other, those who want to curb the deficit, balance the budget have to deal with those realities if they are serious about it.

    Otherwise, it’s just Kabuki Theatre and virtue signaling.

    We cannot keep what we have right now in healthcare without a tax increase. A combination of cuts to healthcare and increased taxes would be a middle group to pursue.

    1. A combination of cuts to healthcare and increased taxes would be a middle group to pursue.

      Not a bad idea, except that historically, the tax increases are the only part that gets implemented. The cuts never come.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The “cuts” for the most part would end up making Medicare more expensive. You can do that and should but it would need to be balanced with tax increases also – like taxing the money spent on employer-provided health insurance which is currently not taxed at all. Or taxing investment income or taxing inherited money, etc… can’t get there with cuts alone.

        1. Once again, you have missed the point of my comment.

          Yes, you can raise taxes – raise them as much as you want – but the promised cuts will never come. No matter what they promise or agree to, congress dos not cut spending – ever.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Almost like the promises for amnesty in the 80’s that never bore fruit.

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            They got the amnesty, it was the enforcement that never happened. If I recall correctly..

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Yep, all the promises in the world and yet here we are still fighting that fight.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not true! We CAN “cut” Medicare by increasing the premiums. MY POINT is that MOST of the budget that we CAN cut that will actually make a difference is in health care and related and especially so if you don’t want to cut defense or any of the other non-Defense security agencies. You can’t get there by cutting the Dept of Transportation or Commerce, etc…

            When I say get “serious”, I mean address these realities and stop playing around about “cuts” that won’t touch the deficit.

  14. Why Matt Gaetz led charge to remove Kevin McCarthy as House speaker

    McCarthy has repeatedly claimed Gaetz has held a grudge against him for refusing his demand that McCarthy intervene in an ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation.

    “He’s blaming me for an ethics complaint against him that happened in the last Congress. I have nothing to do with it,” McCarthy told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” just hours before he was voted out.

    Gaetz, who is rumored to be weighing a run for Florida governor in 2026, is being eyed by the ethics panel over allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use and campaign finance violations as well as taking bribes.

    Many members of Congress, including fellow Republicans, reportedly are eager to expel the Sunshine State politician if he is found guilty of wrongdoing.

    “He wants me to try to wipe that away … I’m not going to do that. That’s illegal,” McCarthy said Tuesday morning. “And you know what? If some way I lose my job because I uphold the law [and the] continuity of government, so be it.”

    https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/why-matt-gaetz-led-charge-to-remove-kevin-mccarthy-as-speaker/

Leave a Reply