Allah:
Via the Daily Caller, there’s a caveat here but I’m not sure why. First Jon Karl asks whether Obama would veto a single bill that funds the entire government for 12 months but specifically blocks him from carrying out executive amnesty. Yup, sure would, says Josh Earnest. Okay, says Karl, but what if Republicans pass a bill that funds the entire government for 12 monthsexcept for Homeland Security, the agency tasked with implementing amnesty, which would be funded on a short-term basis only until O rescinds his executive order? Earnest is noncommittal about that one. That idea, the so-called “CROmnibus,” is indeed being kicked around by GOP leaders. Which makes sense: Republicans want to play hardball with amnesty funding but without defunding the entire government, lest they be blamed for a new shutdown. The obvious solution is to fund most of it and instead play hardball with just DHS, on the assumption that most of the public won’t care about that. Perfectly logical for the GOP to consider that approach.
Is it logical for Obama to consider it, though? His goal is to pressure the GOP into funding his amnesty; his leverage is public perceptions that if government can’t function because it’s not getting the money it needs, it must be the damned Republicans’ fault. If he agrees to the CROmnibus plan, which would require him to sign a bill funding all of the government except DHS for 12 months, he reduces his leverage. Logically, it seems, if he’s willing to veto a single omnibus funding bill on grounds that it hurts his amnesty, he should be willing to veto two separate bills (one short-term bill for DHS and a longer-term bill for everything else) that seek to achieve the same purpose. If Earnest is hedging here, and he is, it must be that even Democrats are nervous about the politics of this.
Obama want’s to shut down the government, fine. Then Congress should include the White House staff in that government shut down. Make sure they put all non-essential White House executive staff on furlough. As Obama wants to play hardball, the Republican Congress needs to play the same game. That includes defunding the luxuries and perks of the White House until Obama capitulates. Ground the Air Force and Marine presidential aircraft fleet. Refuse to budget for the executive office vehicle fleet. Cancel the White House cable TV service. Switch the WH to dial-up internet service.
I’m sure Moochelle wont mind taking care of the cooking and laundry, and she can feed the first family the same meal choices she is forcing in the schools. After all, she has that vegitable garden out back doesn’t she? Tell you what, let them be added on that government cheese & butter program.
Ditto#1: I like your plan.
How about defunding the Secret Service too…. make them pay for their own hookers. 😉
@Ditto: Gee, I wonder who is planning an extensive, expensive, luxurious vacation in Hawaii in December?
What do you do with an entity that is corrupt, inept, and inefficient? Shut her down.
The congress it too chicken sh** to do anything
A word comes to mind. Outmaneuvered. Want to see it again? Just keep watching.
@Greg: Though it is a fact that this administration is all about maneuvering and playing political games instead of getting the nation fit and healthy again, it could be Obama that is boxed in a corner. Maybe you did not hear Reid the Obstructer yesterday.
Mr. Reid is now open and accepting to the idea of passing CR’s that separate out Homeland Security. I think Harry is a little pissed that Obama hung him out to dry and cost him his leadership role (of course, Harry was a more than willing arrogant participant, but since when does a liberal accept responsibility for their own failures?). It sounds like Reid is up for causing Obama a little pain and discomfort, making him choose to either defund Homeland Security or his own illegal amnesty gambit.
More to come, most assuredly.
@Bill, #8:
As I understand it, Obama’s executive order on immigration isn’t dependent on the Homeland Security budget. It’s funded entirely by fees. So, separating out the Homeland Security budget from the rest of government budget has no real effect on Obama’s immigration initiative. It just constrains Homeland Security’s many other functions.
It gets even stranger, unless I’m missing something. Doesn’t the continuing resolution fund everything else at current levels all the way through September 2015? So what happened to the republican election pitch that they were going to rein in the federal budget? They suddenly seem to be blowing that off entirely. I don’t get it. They’ll have controlling majorities in both the House and Senate as of January. They actually will be in a position to impose a more conservative budget in less than a month. They could easily pass a short term funding measure just to get us through until the new Congress is seated. Instead, they’re… Well, I honestly don’t know what they have in mind.
@Greg:
Funded entirely by fees. I see. So, you are under the impression that illegal immigrants are going to begin mailing fees directly into the Illegal Immigrant Illegal Amnesty Executive Order Support Fund and then go onto a data base (built by illegal immigrants, on their own time at their own expense) and click some boxes showing they are now legal residents? I am almost certain that is not how it is going to work.
This is going to require additional employees, additional office space, additional equipment and lots and lots of time. There are supposed to be background checks (unless you think this falls into the “you can keep your insurance” category) and, afterwards, there should be a few deportations. This will all have to come out of someone’s budget and if Congress says “you are not getting another nickel to pay for this activity”…. there will be no activity.
The CR is going to fund the government into the next year; into the next Congress. Then it will be taken up again. Too bad the Democrats never took an interest in messing with budgets, huh?
@MOS+8541: 6, I’m afraid you’re correct.
@Greg:
Then you understand incorrectly, as usual.
@Redteam, #12:
That’s what Representative Hal Rogers (R-KY) says. He ought to know. He’s chairman of the House Appropriations Committee:
I don’t know how the House would “un-appropriate” funds that they don’t actually appropriate to begin with. It would surely require that something be done outside the scope of the appropriations process—a process which they apparently intend to avoid dealing with through nearly all of next year.