StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between

Don't Be Fooled By Side Issues: CR Fight Is Fiscal Terrorism By GOP

26 Sep 2011
Posted by Stan Collender

Just a reminder as the House and Senate resume the battle ("negotiating" just doesn't fit this situation) today over the continuing resolution: the issue that really should be the focus is the length of time this CR will be in place.

As I said last Tuesday, there is absolutely no practical reason the CR shouldn't be for the whole year rather than just until November 18 as House Republicans are insisting.  The spending level for the year was agreed to in the Budget Control Act that was adopted on August 2 and both parties should be required to maintain the deal they agreed to way back then, that is, a mere seven weeks ago.  There's no reason to have a short-term CR with that spending cap in place.  The only reason is that the GOP wants to continue to be able to use the threat of a government shutdown multiple times in the future to get policies in place that otherwise would never be considered let alone adopted.

This is not good budgeting or management.  It's nothing more than fiscal terrorism.

The GOP is no longer a

The GOP is no longer a small-d democratic party, but a revolutionary party of the extreme right. Given the almost unbreakable rigging of our system in favor of the two existing major parties, this is very, very, very dangerous. Godwin-provoking comparisons would by no means be entirely inapt.

More than nit-picking

Though I agree with the general premise, I'm startled to read this misuse of the term "Terrorism"
Terrorism, in a general sense, is defined by violence, illegal actions by sub-national groups, and an ideological agenda. House republicans only satisfy that very last critereon.
Though their behavior is indeed little more than disruptive brinksmanship, it isn't necessary to indulge in that sort of hyperbole.

Terrorism Defined

Deathbyirony: Not to be argumentative, but terrorism is often defined as violence perpetrated against innocent civilians for political ends. While we may disagree on what constitutes "violence", it is clearly innocent Americans who are being hurt by these ridiculous, self-serving fiscal games that are being played by Republicans. In a sane and decent world, these people would be in jail and not in Congress.


Not Terrorism! You should be ashamed!

Stan, you should be ashamed of yourself for the hyperbole in calling this terrorism! No one has even come to blows, much less tried to hurt anyone else (physically ... politics is all about how to distribute pain financially). What you've illustrated is just the legitimate (if adversarial) use of available democratic tools to highlight differences in political preferences. By calling it terrorism, you've really done a disservice to all the victims of genuine terrorism. You know not of what ye speak!

There is a lot wrong in Washington, but given the conflicts and crises facing our society, I think we should be PROUD that we are having these debates, rather than actual terrorism... or totalitarian suppression. Can you imagine China having a debate like this? Russia? Iran? (I am also impressed by the Europeans, who are facing far worse than we are at present, and yet holding the peace together remarkably well.)

Honestly, we should never even have a Continuing Resolution, much less one that runs a whole year. But let the debaters debate; the more open debate there is, the more the voters can see the parties' true colors. Maybe as a result of all the acrimony, voters will choose to elect statesmen rather than partisans next time.

Now TARP, however... that was terrorism by the financiers. "Give us $700B on a blank check or we'll destroy the economy!" And don't get me started on lobbyist-written legislation that our lawmakers don't even have time to read before voting on...

Just because it could be

Just because it could be worse doesn't mean it couldn't be better. The disintegration of old "Gentlemen's Agreements" will have immense human costs, as trifling as they may appear on the outside.
I'm simply making the argument that we should be precise in our language, lest it be used against us.

Then what was the Obamacare bill?

Rushed through in the middle of the night with no one outside of select Democraat leadership, and *especially* not the public who is *supposed* to be Congress' boss was allowed to know what they were actually voting on?

I'm waiting for you to use similar terminology for that. Fraud? Malfeasance? Anti-democratic?

Recent comments


Order from Amazon


Creative Commons LicenseThe content of is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.