I may be wrong but it would seem like they are spending MORE money to close open access memorials.

I may be wrong but it would seem like they are spending MORE money to close open access memorials.

 

 

They are.

 

The cost of staffing it to shut them down and put barricades up is more than if it was just left alone....mind blowing.

Breitbart is a partisan propaganda site.

 

Even if you believe that, they still spoke the truth on this issue.

They have shut down turn off lanes on the roads so you cannot view Mt. Rushmore, they have shutdown overlooks on parkways, and finally they have tried to shut down the ocean........

 

 

 

Rushmore blockage stirs anger in S.D. | Argus Leader | argusleader.com

 

Blue Ridge inn's act of defiance lasts about 2 hours

 

 

NPS Rangers To Patrol Newest ?Government Shutdown? Closure: THE OCEAN - Fox Nation

So now there is a right and wrong way for the government to shut down? Isn't that splitting hairs? Who cares what is shut down and what isn't? Our entire government is failing the entire American public and IMO it is extremely petty to argue about what is bein shutdown in this shutdown compared to others and who the blame belongs to. It belongs to all of them in Washington. Every single one of them created this with their stubborn approach to politics. You can't blame one side without blaming both sides.

 

The answer to your first question: yes. President Obama's decision to shut down stuff that doesn't need to be shut down results in some people believing he has stooped to the level of members of Congress acting in a partisan manner.

 

The answer to your second question: No.

 

The answer to your third question: I do and I'm sure that those Americans adversely impacted by the unnecessary shutdown of certain venues care also.

 

Response to the rest of your post: both parties in Congress share the blame. I agree with that. Yet I expect the President of this country, be he (or she) a D or R, to be above what is displayed in Congress. We can place the blame for this country's extreme partisanship on a lot of people in the past and the present. At this point, what happened in the past is somewhat meaningless to me. I care about the now and what it will take to move this country forward. Actions like unnecessarily shutting down certain venues makes it harder to make things better.

 

The unnecessary shutdown of venues by this Administration is one more example of my belief that President Obama is a very ineffective leader; does not know what it takes to lead; does not have what it takes to actually lead; and misses opportunity after opportunity to get and use the support of John Q. Public behind him to lead a majority of Congress.

 

A side bar thought or two to ponder: Some of those upset with the tea partiers in the House like to claim that such a small number of idealogues shouldn't be running the House. I've heard our President use similar comments himself. Yet if they are such a small number of people out of touch with reality, how can they have such a large impact on what the House does? Are they greater in number than we think? If so, shouldn't a large number of elected officials with a specific view point, in a representative form of government, have a strong say in this country's policies? If they aren't so great in numbers, why don't the moderate members of Congress simply outvote them? On this issue, wouldn't the liberal members support the moderates of both parties and support measures to end the shutdown? Help me out here folks in understanding the venom being sent towards the very conservative members of the House. Something just doesn't add up to me. It seems to me that either they are just a few out of touch people, in which case they should be easily outvoted; or they are greater in number, in which case their views are supported by a significant number of Americans and their views shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Is there a third option that I'm missing?

A side bar thought or two to ponder: Some of those upset with the tea partiers in the House like to claim that such a small number of idealogues shouldn't be running the House. I've heard our President use similar comments himself. Yet if they are such a small number of people out of touch with reality, how can they have such a large impact on what the House does? Are they greater in number than we think? If so, shouldn't a large number of elected officials with a specific view point, in a representative form of government, have a strong say in this country's policies? If they aren't so great in numbers, why don't the moderate members of Congress simply outvote them? On this issue, wouldn't the liberal members support the moderates of both parties and support measures to end the shutdown? Help me out here folks in understanding the venom being sent towards the very conservative members of the House. Something just doesn't add up to me. It seems to me that either they are just a few out of touch people, in which case they should be easily outvoted; or they are greater in number, in which case their views are supported by a significant number of Americans and their views shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Is there a third option that I'm missing?

 

By most accounts there are 30 or so House Republicans that are entirely obstinate. They would be outvoted if Boehner brought the bill to the floor, but he is against bringing bills up that won't pass without a Republican majority (and with at least 30 guaranteed Republican "no" votes, the bill would almost certainly pass with a Democratic majority). More practically, he might put his role as Speaker on the line by doing so. It seems Boehner is not in an enviable position.

 

Here is an interview with a conservative journalist about the matter and a column by Byron York that provide more detail:

 

Why Boehner doesn?t just ditch the hard right

 

How 30 House Republicans are forcing the Obamacare fight | WashingtonExaminer.com

By most accounts there are 30 or so House Republicans that are entirely obstinate. They would be outvoted if Boehner brought the bill to the floor, but he is against bringing bills up that won't pass without a Republican majority (and with at least 30 guaranteed Republican "no" votes, the bill would almost certainly pass with a Democratic majority). More practically, he might put his role as Speaker on the line by doing so. It seems Boehner is not in an enviable position.

 

Here is an interview with a conservative journalist about the matter and a column by Byron York that provide more detail:

 

Why Boehner doesn?t just ditch the hard right

 

How 30 House Republicans are forcing the Obamacare fight | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

Thx. Will comment later.

FWIW, I went by the Lincoln memorial just a couple of days ago and it is not only blocked off so that you can't walk up to it, it is covered by a black curtain and guarded.

By most accounts there are 30 or so House Republicans that are entirely obstinate. They would be outvoted if Boehner brought the bill to the floor, but he is against bringing bills up that won't pass without a Republican majority (and with at least 30 guaranteed Republican "no" votes, the bill would almost certainly pass with a Democratic majority). More practically, he might put his role as Speaker on the line by doing so. It seems Boehner is not in an enviable position.

 

Here is an interview with a conservative journalist about the matter and a column by Byron York that provide more detail:

 

Why Boehner doesn?t just ditch the hard right

 

How 30 House Republicans are forcing the Obamacare fight | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

An interesting point made in one of the articles. The D leader in the House is given "credit" for keeping "discipline" with the D members of the House, with no D's willing to step up and help Boehner find enough support on the D side for an alternative (thus Boehner not needing the votes of the 50 or 60 Rs taking the hard stand). Is that another way of saying the D leader is exercising so much pressure on D members that they won't vote the way they feel? If not, why the mention of discipline? Is that an example of the Ds being more interested in seeing the Rs implode in the House than doing what is best for the country? Help me out in seeing this for what it is. I hear what you are saying when you think a bill would pass with the support of the Ds, but based on what I read in the article, I'm not so sure that is the case. It seems to me like the Ds are enjoying the situation way too much.

An interesting point made in one of the articles. The D leader in the House is given "credit" for keeping "discipline" with the D members of the House, with no D's willing to step up and help Boehner find enough support on the D side for an alternative (thus Boehner not needing the votes of the 50 or 60 Rs taking the hard stand). Is that another way of saying the D leader is exercising so much pressure on D members that they won't vote the way they feel? If not, why the mention of discipline? Is that an example of the Ds being more interested in seeing the Rs implode in the House than doing what is best for the country? Help me out in seeing this for what it is. I hear what you are saying when you think a bill would pass with the support of the Ds, but based on what I read in the article, I'm not so sure that is the case. It seems to me like the Ds are enjoying the situation way too much.

 

When I say that a bill would pass with Democratic support, I mean that the continuing resolution without the Obamacare finagling would garner nearly all, if not all, 200 Democratic votes and probably close to 175 Republican votes (according to York, but I imagine in practice it would be quite a bit less once a majority was secured).

 

I can’t say what kind of pressure Hoyer is putting on his caucus. But, I’m also not sure there’s much attraction for many of them to vote against their interests anyway. They are being asked to substantially undermine their major legislative achievement in exchange for passing the continuing resolution, and public opinion has largely been on their side. Hoyer has a much easier job than Boehner does right now in keeping their caucuses united.

 

As far as whether the Democrats are more interested in seeing the Republicans in turmoil or in doing what is best for the country, I guess that depends on your angle. When Republicans tied Obamacare to the continuing resolution to fund the government, they expected that Democrats would fold to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats expected that a government shutdown would be painful enough for Republicans that it would push them to detach the Obamacare fight from the continuing resolution. From my angle, I don’t understand why Democrats would capitulate under those demands. If the good of the country is funding the government (or raising the debt ceiling), why is it that Democrats should cave to Republican demands to fund it and not that Republicans shouldn’t use it as leverage to get a policy concession they want?

FWIW, I went by the Lincoln memorial just a couple of days ago and it is not only blocked off so that you can't walk up to it, it is covered by a black curtain and guarded.

 

Seriously? I really didn't think this administration would get so petty. They've come right down to the level of the opposition.

Seriously? I really didn't think this administration would get so petty. They've come right down to the level of the opposition.

 

I might have a picture. Let me look.

This was edited to take me out of the pic. You can see the curtain though.

 

 

Who is not funding government?

 

Here is the simple and accurate answer - The Senate.

 

The Senate has not passed a budget (as legally required) since 2009. Not a big deal - a budget is just that - a budget. It is not how spending is done. See here.

 

Appropriations bills which are usually in multiple pieces of legislation and must originate in the House according to the Constitution is how actual spending is done. So when was the last time the Senate passed a full slate of appropriations bills? Answer - 2009 (for fiscal 2010).

 

See this link to see what a 'normal' year of appropriations activity looks like - link here.

 

Notice the last 2 columns - Senate vote and Public law. Notice how it shows when the Senate voted on the appropriations and what the actual passed law is. Also notice that there is only one specific reference to a CR - continuing resolution.

 

Here is a link to the 2011 Fiscal year appropriations bills - link here.

 

Notice that the only thing passed into law are Continuing Resolutions - basically keep alive bills that extend previously passed appropriations. Notice that no actual regular appropriations bills passed. Note that the Senate did not even vote on a single appropriations bill. Not one.

 

If you keep clicking on the later Fiscal years (2012, 2013, 2014 (current cycle is for Fiscal 2014)) you will see no Senate vote on a single appropriations bill. Not one. None since 2009. And interestingly - none since AHCA passed (December 24, 2009).

 

Harry Reid says he wants a 'clean CR'. CR is a stop gap. Its a pass for a body of government that refuses to do its responsibility.

 

Since there has not been an appropriations bill passed since AHCA passed I am not sure how AHCA is even funded now. A lot of Federal dollars have been spent on it. But how since no appropriation bills have passed since it passed.

 

CRs were very, very rare before 2010. It is now how the government runs. And it is the Senate that refuses to even vote on the bills. There is pressure being applied to Boehner to 'just call a vote' today and by the liberal outlets. Why? The Senate has not voted for 4 years.

 

Here is an article the describes how the discussion (argument) should be framed by the Repubs by Thomas Sowell. He points out that - as usually - they are screwing it up the message.

 

Inarticulate Republicans by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

 

"As the great economist Alfred Marshall once said, facts do not speak for themselves. If we are waiting for the Republicans to do the speaking, the country is in big trouble.

 

Democrats, by contrast, are all talk. They could sell refrigerators to Eskimos before Republicans could sell them blankets."

 

 

I always like the dialog from one of the Batman movies -

 

"You made me."

"You made me first."

 

The government quit working in 2010 and when the facts are exposed - it indicates its the Senate that quit working.

More on CRs and Senate inaction.

 

From Hal Rogers. Note the use of the term "Clean" CR from back in 2010.

 

Appropriations Republicans Call for a ?Clean? CR | Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives

 

 

Timeline of lack of Senate action:

 

Timeline Of Senate Democrats? Refusal To Make Budget Plans Public - Budget Background - Research - U.S. Senate Budget Committee