OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S selective slimdown of government during the budget stalemate is even reaching into America's wilderness, where searches for missing hikers have been curtailed — including Dr. Jodean Elliot-Blakeslee, missing while hiking Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho.
Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?
Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers -- even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job.
Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, D.C., such as the World War II Memorial.
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., accused the administration of selectively closing parks. His office noted that less-visited sites like the Constitutional Gardens remain open, while major draws like the National Mall are closed.
"It appears as though only the highly visible monuments and areas are being closed to the public -- further proof that the Obama Administration is only playing politics and purposely choosing to make this shut down as painful as possible," he said in a statement.
House Republicans are trying to push a series of mini-spending bills aimed at prying open certain portions of the government, including national parks and monuments.
heyzeus wrote:Why do we elect people to run the federal government who are openly hostile to the idea of federal government? It just makes no sense. I guess this idea is patterned after the Texas School Board, where we routinely elect people who believe public school is communism and should be disbanded. The results are equally promising.
Maybe because some people want a smaller federal government, so they elect people who say they will do what they can make it so. What makes no sense to me is how some people are so indifferent to how big the federal government has become and don't care really how big it gets (or actually want it to get even bigger).
heyzeus wrote:Why do we elect people to run the federal government who are openly hostile to the idea of federal government? It just makes no sense. I guess this idea is patterned after the Texas School Board, where we routinely elect people who believe public school is communism and should be disbanded. The results are equally promising.
Maybe because some people want a smaller federal government, so they elect people who say they will do what they can make it so. What makes no sense to me is how some people are so indifferent to how big the federal government has become and don't care really how big it gets (or actually want it to get even bigger).
FWIW, it's the federal government has actually shrunk under Obama. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with your point or not.
heyzeus makes a good point. Teabaggers want smaller government, so they're likely doing cartwheels over the shutdown.
Yes, removing the ability of the federal government to pay its debts and employees certainly has the effect of making it smaller. Kind of like a great way to lose weight being a .357 to the forehead.
The debt ceiling blackmail is not a legislative philosophical foray into the role of government in our lives. It is an attempt to force a legislative agenda that failed in the Senate and failed at the polls and failed at the Supreme Court by tying that attempt to the basic functioning of our government. And it belies an open hostility to government at all, not merely a "slimming down," otherwise they'd be going about this via the actual democratic channels rather than via terroristic threat.
Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?
Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers -- even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job.
Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, D.C., such as the World War II Memorial.
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., accused the administration of selectively closing parks. His office noted that less-visited sites like the Constitutional Gardens remain open, while major draws like the National Mall are closed.
"It appears as though only the highly visible monuments and areas are being closed to the public -- further proof that the Obama Administration is only playing politics and purposely choosing to make this shut down as painful as possible," he said in a statement.
House Republicans are trying to push a series of mini-spending bills aimed at prying open certain portions of the government, including national parks and monuments.
What would be the advantage of leaving Constitutional Gardens open while the others close?
heyzeus wrote:Why do we elect people to run the federal government who are openly hostile to the idea of federal government? It just makes no sense. I guess this idea is patterned after the Texas School Board, where we routinely elect people who believe public school is communism and should be disbanded. The results are equally promising.
Maybe because some people want a smaller federal government, so they elect people who say they will do what they can make it so. What makes no sense to me is how some people are so indifferent to how big the federal government has become and don't care really how big it gets (or actually want it to get even bigger).
I think plenty of people want a smaller federal government, a military specifically. If that's the case it should be discussed and accomplished through normal legislative channels, not playing chicken every time the budget comes up for approval. But instead we wait for the budget and then spend time [expletive] about arbitrary dollar figures trying to force efficiency rather than taking a hard look at what is really needed and what isn't. And is it really sincere if you offer up stuff like PBS as an example of govt waste while the military is completely untouchable?
TimeForGuinness wrote:
Because there's too much money wrapped up in the status quo...you think all that money out there is going to allow the Tea Party to take it down? Doubtful. This is just politics.
A basic agreement gets done in the next 2 weeks which will reopen the govt...and they'll kick the can down the road a few months to work out a budget. Expect this to happen again around Christmas. Wheeee!
I think something will get done, but I think it's a terrible idea to condition this group to expect something every time in exchange for their signature.
heyzeus wrote:Yes, removing the ability of the federal government to pay its debts and employees certainly has the effect of making it smaller. Kind of like a great way to lose weight being a .357 to the forehead.
The debt ceiling blackmail is not a legislative philosophical foray into the role of government in our lives. It is an attempt to force a legislative agenda that failed in the Senate and failed at the polls and failed at the Supreme Court by tying that attempt to the basic functioning of our government. And it belies an open hostility to government at all, not merely a "slimming down," otherwise they'd be going about this via the actual democratic channels rather than via terroristic threat.
Your post seemed pretty general, so I gave a general answer. Nothing more, nothing less.
There's nothing really to "close" with the Constitutional Gardens. It's a pond with trees and flowering plants around it in between the Vietnam and WWII memorials. Outside of putting up fencing that closes off the entire National Mall, I have no idea how you would even actually get the Constitutional Gardens closed.
