Monday, July 21, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 94 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama signs bill to end shutdown, avoid national default

By David Espo

AP Special Correspondent

LAST UPDATED: 06:38 p.m. HST, Oct 16, 2013

WASHINGTON >> Up against a deadline, Congress passed and sent a waiting President Barack Obama legislation late tonight to avoid a threatened national default and end the 16-day partial government shutdown, the culmination of an epic political drama that placed the U.S. economy at risk.

The Senate voted first, a bipartisan 81-18 at midevening. That cleared the way for a final 285-144 vote in the Republican-controlled House about two hours later on the legislation, which hewed strictly to the terms Obama laid down when the twin crises erupted more than three weeks ago.

(Hawaii's four Congressional delegates, all Democrats, voted for the bill.)

The legislation would permit the Treasury to borrow normally through Feb. 7 or perhaps a month longer, and fund the government through Jan. 15. More than 2 million federal workers would be paid -- those who had remained on the job and those who had been furloughed.

After the Senate approved the measure, Obama hailed the vote and quickly signed the bill early Thursday. "We'll begin reopening our government immediately, and we can begin to lift this cloud of uncertainty from our businesses and the American people," the president said.

Earlier in the House, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said, "After two long weeks, it is time to end this government shutdown. It's time to take the threat of default off the table. It's time to restore some sanity to this place."

The stock market surged higher at the prospect of an end to the crisis that also had threatened to shake confidence in the U.S. economy overseas.

Republicans conceded defeat after a long struggle. "We fought the good fight. We just didn't win," conceded House Speaker John Boehner as lawmakers lined up to vote on a bill that includes nothing for GOP lawmakers who had demand to eradicate or scale back Obama's signature health care overhaul.

"The compromise we reached will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, declaring that the nation "came to the brink of disaster" before sealing an agreement.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who negotiated the deal with Reid, emphasized that it preserved a round of spending cuts negotiated two years ago with Obama and Democrats. As a result, he said, "government spending has declined for two years in a row" for the first time since the Korean War. "And we're not going back on this agreement," he added.

Only a temporary truce, the measure set a time frame of early this winter for the next likely clash between Obama and the Republicans over spending and borrowing.

But for now, government was lurching back to life. Within moments of the House's vote, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued a statement saying "employees should expect to return to work in the morning."

After weeks of gridlock, the measure had support from the White House, most if not all Democrats in Congress and many Republicans fearful of the economic impact of a default.

Boehner and the rest of the top GOP leadership told their rank and file in advance they would vote for the measure. In the end, Republicans split 144 against and 87 in favor. All 198 voting Democrats were supporters.

Final passage came in plenty of time to assure Obama's signature before the administration's 11:59 p.m. Thursday deadline.

That was when Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said the government would reach the current $16.7 trillion debt limit and could no longer borrow to meet its obligations.

Tea party-aligned lawmakers who triggered the shutdown that began on Oct. 1 said they would vote against the legislation. Significantly, though, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and others agreed not to use the Senate's cumbersome 18th-century rules to slow the bill's progress.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Cruz said the measure was "a terrible deal" and criticized fellow Republicans for lining up behind it.

McConnell made no mention of the polls showing that the shutdown and flirtation with default have sent Republicans' public approval plummeting and have left the party badly split nationally as well as in his home state of Kentucky. He received a prompt reminder, though.

"When the stakes are highest Mitch McConnell can always be counted on to sell out conservatives," said Matt Bevin, who is challenging the party leader from the right in a 2014 election primary.

More broadly, national tea party groups and their allies underscored the internal divide. The Club for Growth urged lawmakers to vote against the congressional measure, and said it would factor in the organization's decision when it decides which candidates to support in midterm elections next year.

"There are no significant changes to Obamacare, nothing on the other major entitlements that are racked with trillions in unfunded liabilities, and no meaningful spending cuts either. If this bill passes, Congress will kick the can down the road, yet again," the group said.

Even so, support for Boehner appeared solid inside his fractious rank and file. "There are no plots, plans or rumblings that I know of. And I was part of one in January, so I'd probably be on the whip list for that," said Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out in favor of the bill.

Simplicity at the end, there was next to nothing in the agreement beyond authorization for the Treasury to resume borrowing and funding for the government to reopen.

House and Senate negotiators are to meet this fall to see if progress is possible on a broad deficit-reduction compromise of the type that has proved elusive in the current era of divided government.

Additionally, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is to be required to produce a report stating that her agency is capable of verifying the incomes of individuals who apply for federal subsidies under the health care law known as Obamacare.

Obama had insisted repeatedly he would not pay "ransom" by yielding to Republican demands for significant changes to the health care overhaul in exchange for funding the government and permitting Treasury the borrowing latitude to pay the nation's bills.

Other issues fell by the wayside in a final deal, including a Republican proposal for the suspension of a medical device tax in Obamacare and a Democratic call to delay a fee on companies for everyone who receives health coverage under an employer-sponsored plan.

The gradual withering of Republicans' Obamacare-related demands defined the arc of the struggle that has occupied virtually all of Congress' time for the past three weeks.

The shutdown began on Oct. 1 after Cruz and his tea party allies in the House demanded the defunding of the health care law as a trade for providing essential government funding.

Obama and Reid refused, then refused again and again as Boehner gradually scaled back Republican demands.

The shutdown initially idled about 800,000 workers, but that soon fell to about 350,000 after Congress agreed to let furloughed Pentagon employees return to work. While there was widespread inconvenience, the mail was delivered, Medicare continued to pay doctors who treated seniors and there was no interruption in Social Security benefits.

Still, national parks were closed to the detriment of tourists and local businesses, government research scientists were sent home and Food and Drug Administration inspectors worked only sporadically.


Associated Press writers Donna Cassata, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Henry C. Jackson, Bradley Klapper, Laurie Kellman, Julie Pace and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this story.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 94 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
808ikea wrote:
If the senate passes the bill does the house simply need a majority vote? Is that how it works?
on October 16,2013 | 06:03AM
Big C wrote:
The trick is for the Senate "Kids" to send enough "candy" to the House "Kids" to make them want to play and complete the game before the "Recess" ends. Literally, a bunch of Kids running the US Gov't!
on October 16,2013 | 06:18AM
IAmSane wrote:
That didn't even answer 808ikea's question...
on October 16,2013 | 07:09AM
Maipono wrote:
Big C don't insult kids like that!
on October 16,2013 | 08:01AM
kahuku01 wrote:
Really, the Senators that are acting like kids are Cruz and Rubio. They're just a bunch of cry babies.
on October 16,2013 | 11:49AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Another cry baby. Per Republican Rep. Stuzman: ....."We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is". .......Note to Stuzman: That "something" is NOTHING.
on October 16,2013 | 12:30PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
Where's the Dems budget? Obama campaigned on balancing the budget. He wants to raise the debt ceiling, find where is his budget. Why won't the Dems tell us their agenda by way of a budget?
on October 16,2013 | 02:59PM
BluesBreaker wrote:
Because the Republicans have refused to negotiate on the budget. That's why we got to a shutdown and debt ceiling crisis. The Tea Party wants to precipitate a crisis using the shutdown and debt ceiling votes to leverage things they can't get through budget negotiations. Maybe will get some actual budget negotiations now that the Republicans been humiliated and their poll numbers are at an all-time low and public's view of the Tea Party is that they are a bunch of irrational ideologues.
on October 16,2013 | 04:13PM
EightOEight wrote:
Bluesbreaker, the Tpublicans have an aversion to learning from past mistakes (they didn't learn from the 1996 shutdown, they still pass legislation that hurts women and the vulnerable in our society, they demonize immigrants and those on public assistance...of which many work but don't earn a living wage, and yet expect these people to vote for them). Then you have Boehner's statement in a companion article, "Boehner in a statement said the House, quote, "fought with everything" it had to persuade President Barack Obama to engage in bipartisan negotiations on the country's debt and the 3-year-old health care law. He vowed that the fight will continue.", and Cruz's reaction in this article. No, you give them too much credit and that will become very evident in a few short weeks.
on October 16,2013 | 04:40PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
The last few years the Dems produced no budget. That is the reason we are in this mess right now. Do they know how to do a budget? What about Obama, all campaigning and no results. When the Repubs swept into office in 2010, a Ryan budget was produced. The Dems in concert with the bias corrupt media ridiculed it, call it bigoted, and mean. Now you airheads don't know any better and went right along and fell in line. According to the Constitution the budget comes from the House first and then the Senate not the other way around. Yeah, The Constitution, an oath they all took.
on October 16,2013 | 04:54PM
jomama wrote:
thepartyfirst says it all. How about country first? Fellow man first? Nope, he like the other Republinuts is ideology first.
on October 16,2013 | 06:58PM
Maipono wrote:
Don't forget Reid, Feinstein, Pelosi, Hirono, Hanabusa, Schatz and Gabbard.
on October 16,2013 | 12:32PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Being winners, being on the winning side is NOT being "cry babies".
on October 16,2013 | 12:36PM
Maipono wrote:
America is the loser.
on October 16,2013 | 01:12PM
hanalei395 wrote:
After that Republican government shutdown on the American people that failed, the GOP is the loser.
on October 16,2013 | 01:27PM
SteveToo wrote:
What do you do when the government borrows so much money it can't pay it back any more? Me, I'll be dead by then, but you'll be living in a 3rd world nation.
on October 16,2013 | 05:39PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I worry about that too. the current senior generation will be the last to enjoy such entitlement benefits. Social security probably won't be around for the next generation, at least not in it's current form. Neither will Medicare and Medicaid. The inability of either party to reform Medicare and cut defense spending is the problem, this is where most of the money goes, everything else is peanuts in comparison. The costs of Medicare/Medicaid every year to the federal government is just about equal to the annual deficit this country runs, 1 trillion a year. You can't reform healthcare without reforming Medicare, this is why Obamacare won't do much good, it affects everyone but Medicare beneficiaries, mostly in a negative fashion. Both parties are afraid to do what everyone knows is needed, they just keep kicking the can down the road.
on October 16,2013 | 11:31PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Thank goodness for the Senate. Now they have to finish the job, change their rules, and prevent a guy like Cruz from gumming up the works ever again. Probably should eliminate unanimous consent, cloture and unlimited floor debate from the process of considering legislation impacting continuous operation of the government. The theory behind those things seems to be that semblance of bi-partisan support is important, and that endless delay maneuvering can sway opinion. While this might marginally be true in very isolated circumstances, the risks of these procedures being mis-used is too great. What are the risks? Shutdown of the US government, and economic collapse.
on October 16,2013 | 09:17AM
CriticalReader wrote:
And, that little secret voting rule the House enacted just as this thing started, as well as the "Hastert Rule" need to be dispensed with. Those are very, very dangerous rules and revealed in how much jeopardy we're in. At one point, and for two weeks, our nation was technically in the hands of a single person - Eric Cantor - and, it appears, to a diminishing lesser extent, Boehner and the Tea Party. Not good. I, and most Americans, by far most Americans numerically, never even had a chance to vote for or against these people.
on October 16,2013 | 09:29AM
HD36 wrote:
Spoken like a true Marxist.
on October 16,2013 | 10:28AM
CriticalReader wrote:
What? Advocating that each Representative and each Senator just be allowed to vote their position without pocedural blocks or delays? That's Marxism? Lemme ask you something, HD, do Tea Party football coaches rally their players by calling the other players marxists and communists? Do Tea Party Moms make their children go to bed by threatening that, "or else the Marxist is gonna get you". Do Tea Party murderers try to blame that Marxist personality or voice that appears and they "hear" during times of stress?
on October 16,2013 | 10:47AM
SteveToo wrote:
This is they sent no candy. Just turned around dropped their pants and let Obama kick their butts.
on October 16,2013 | 05:18PM
markat wrote:
Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place. During a floor speech on Saturday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) drew attention to the quietly passed rule when he attempted to present a motion to accept the Senate's clean continuing resolution and reopen the government. That's how it used to work. The rules were changed by the Republicans recently to keep control of the government shutdown in the hands of the majority (Republican) leader, rather than in the hands of the majority of the members of congress. "Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been "altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia." credit: ashley alman
on October 16,2013 | 07:16AM
markat wrote:
Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place. During a floor speech on Saturday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) drew attention to the quietly passed rule when he attempted to present a motion to accept the Senate's clean continuing resolution and reopen the government. "Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been "altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia." credit: ashley alman Corrected article above. original post got messed up in comment window.
on October 16,2013 | 07:19AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
The vote will be taken once the Speaker of the House calls for the vote. It is a straight majority vote.
on October 16,2013 | 08:42AM
Anonymous wrote:
keep it shut down. too many free loaders from the democrat 'breeding' programs.
on October 16,2013 | 04:08PM
OldDiver wrote:
WooHoo, Republicans are releasing the hostages (The American People) until January when they will again put a gun to our heads. Wonderful.
on October 16,2013 | 06:24AM
TMJ wrote:
on October 16,2013 | 06:46AM
hanalei395 wrote:
After the Republicans heard the bad news for them, TMJ passed out.
on October 16,2013 | 07:00AM
SteveToo wrote:
Why can't Obama be the one to compromise? He always wants the "others" to compromise which means get down on your knees and say yes master.
on October 16,2013 | 07:50AM
Wonderful_World wrote:
It's yes to the mistress (Valerie Jarrett aka Puppetmaster))
on October 16,2013 | 08:36AM
cojef wrote:
High Chieftess Jarrett calls the shot. The shadow person who is changing the face of democracy.
on October 16,2013 | 08:49AM
Wonderful_World wrote:
That's it--High Chieftess is a nicer title. I just thought mistress would be the feminine form of master but it doesn't sound very nice.
on October 16,2013 | 08:56AM
EightOEight wrote:
More posts by Tpublican elementary school kids.
on October 16,2013 | 12:45PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Steve, little late, huh?
on October 16,2013 | 09:18AM
LMO wrote:
"Why can't Obama be the one to compromise?" You're kidding, right? The whole reason Obamacare is so awful is that the President allowed the republicans to change it so much that it is now an awful bill, but he kowtowed to them just to get it passed. That compromise of his lead to an awful bill, and now the repubs what more. They hate the bill they created. So what did they gain by this shutdown? NOTHING! It would be nice if people remembered the republican stupidity come next election (locally or federally), but they never do.
on October 17,2013 | 02:04AM
Denominator wrote:
You've been eating too much MSNBC candy with Demo koolaid!
on October 16,2013 | 01:42PM
RLKE wrote:
I think a gun is already to the heads of the American people.. Remember we are 17 trillion dollars in debt. With this approval, that will just grow.
on October 16,2013 | 06:09PM
soundofreason wrote:
Can't be. O'bama said he wouldn't compromise. This short time frame bill IS a compromise along with some of the elements in it. So....O'bama lied about not compromising? He's firm until he's not firm? Hey, if you're going to talk the talk - walk the walk and nobody put those words in his mouth in the first place.
on October 16,2013 | 07:43AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Obama would not compromise on Obamacare, of which it is the sole reason the Republicans wanted, started a shutdown of the government in the first place. When Obama didn't budge, the Republicans changed the subject. And their "demands".
on October 16,2013 | 08:01AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Actually, Obamacare or HR3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Act or PPACA or Obamacare for short, is an invalid Law. Obamacare is an invalid law because HR3590 is not a House Bill but a Senate bill which the US constitution forbids the Senate from creating or originating. The reason HR3590 PPACA or Obamacare is a Senate Bill is because the entire contents and title of the original house bill HR3590 Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was struck down and replaced by PPACA or Obamacare.

Because PPACA or Obamacare is a Senate revenue bill not a House revenue bill it is null and void because Section 7 of the US Constitution stiipulates that revenue bills can only originate from the House of Representatives.

on October 16,2013 | 02:48PM
312guy wrote:
irt kuniarr: the supreme court upheld it, so change it by introducing a law, not by having babooze cruz, going and ruining the repubican brand. get rid of the cancer " canadian boy Cruz"
on October 16,2013 | 08:42PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Individual Mandate was constitutional. The issue here is that Obamacare is an invalid law that the Constitution of the US prohibited from being enacted by the Senate. What everyone needs to remember is that the US Constitution only allows a revenue bill as Obamacare to originate from the House. The US Constitution allowed the Senate to make amendments to the House bill.

However, what the Senate Democrats did was replace the entire contents and even the title of HR3590 Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 with the contents of the PPACA and renamed HR3590 as Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - under the guise of Amendents.

By replacing the entire contents and title of the original HR3590, HR3590 became a Senate bill which is prohibited by Section 7 of the US Constitution.

What the Senate Democrats did was bypass the provision of Section 7 that Obamacare must originate from the Senate by replacing the entire contents and title of a House Bill pending in the Senate under the guise of AMENDMENTS.

And that is exactly the issue. Replacing the entire provisions of HR3950 including its title was tantamount to HR3950 becoming a Senate bill and therefore an invalid Bill because Obamacare did not originate from the House but from the Senate in violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the US Constitution.
on October 16,2013 | 10:00PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
The SS must have missed that when they reviewed the constitutionality of Obamacare huh? Maybe you could submit a brief to the court explaining their job duties to them?
on October 16,2013 | 11:52PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
on October 17,2013 | 12:00AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Hahahah. Now the Tea Partiers DON'T want Obama to have compromised????
on October 16,2013 | 09:51AM
soundofreason wrote:
No, just want a President who does what he says......somewhere along the line.
on October 16,2013 | 06:47PM
SteveToo wrote:
Why not drop the BU-LL? The government takes in enough money each month to pay the interest and principal on our debt so there is NO CHANCE OF A DEFAULT! There is even enough to pay all those on SS. Of course some payments/spending would have to be cut, but shoots we are SPENDING WAY TO MUCH. Do you Liberals out there "charge" or "borrow" that much to keep your personal life style?
on October 16,2013 | 07:47AM
beachbum11 wrote:
Need to ask od and his friends here. Do they have a budget for their household? I do and struggle every month working two Jobs and my wife working one and a half. Got to put the dog to work soon.
on October 16,2013 | 08:47AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
No Steve, that is a talking point promoted by the Republicans and some others in the media. They focused on simple arithmetic, that being the monthly debt service, the payments on the national debt, is less than monthly revenue therefore you don't have a default. What has been pointed out by the Treasury Secretary, the central banks around the world and most other bankers and economist is that default mean you cannot pay your obligations. The national debt is just one obligation of our federal government, through various programs we have obligations we owe to contractors, farmers, students and others that we will not be able to pay. Its kind of like you have a mortgage, credit cards, a student loan, maybe a car loan. So one day you are unable to pay for all of them so you decide to pay the mortgage but you don't pay the car loan. Well Steve, you are not in default of the Mortgage, but you are in default of the car loan. What happens to you in this case would happen to our country, your credit rating goes down, it will cost you more to borrow, and other bad things will happen. So just remember what the Treasury Secretary said, prioritizing payment only on debt service is just default by another name. That statement has been echoed around the world, but thankfully that will not happen now, I hope.
on October 16,2013 | 08:52AM
SteveToo wrote:
Then the answer is STOP spending money on NEW projects. We can't keep this up w/o winding up like those southern European socialist nations. Flat a-s-s-d out of money.
on October 16,2013 | 11:36AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Some damage has already been done. The world thinks American's and our congress are crazy and messing with the overall world economy in the process. Already China has called for the world economy to be "de-Americanized". If the world decided to adopt a different reserve currency than the US dollar we would be in real trouble. This type of "self inflicted" crisis causes damage to America's standing in the world when we can least afford it.
on October 17,2013 | 12:04AM
sailfish1 wrote:
Interest and principal on our debt is just part of the expenses. Paying for the current government is an even bigger cost.
on October 16,2013 | 02:36PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
We should applaud Obama for spending money on necessities such as health care. The vast majority of our budget goes towards Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. So unless you are suggesting we cut such benefits, we must continue spending trillions of dollars on such welfare programs. I'm pretty sure that if the U.S. went to war against Syria--the GOP would have no problem raising the debt limit. Republicans in general are hypocrites for bashing public and private unions for fighting to pay for health insurance benefits for their members--when larger firms and corporations which Tea Party supporters represent are deadbeats who play a large role in the skyrocketing number of uninsured employees across the country. Case in point: Of the 28 million uninsured workers--nearly half work in firms and companies with 50 or more employees. I once mistakenly assumed that the vast majority of uninsured employees worked in a small business.
on October 16,2013 | 05:57PM
HD36 wrote:
Yes, America is an exceptional country. We are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
on October 16,2013 | 06:14PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Are you prepared to cut Medicare? Or defense spending? No, neither is either party. That's where most of the money goes.
on October 16,2013 | 11:55PM
ponowai wrote:
There needs to be a law that suspends the pay for congress members and all of their staff, in the event of a government shutdown. If the shutdown last a month, their medical premiums get cut too. Perhaps when they feel pain government workers feel, they will work harder at avoiding another shutdown.
on October 16,2013 | 07:50AM
cojef wrote:
Too many career politicians who are overpaid. Term limits will bring the true patriots to the surface. Take away all pay allowances and perks that they voted for themselves. A set amount of stipend plus expenses to travel to Washington and return home. Congressional aids are like civil servants and should be compensated no different and receive the same health insurance coverage, not separate one like they have currently. Should there be 2 classes of Federal workers?? Currently, congressional employees and Congress is exempt from the ACA. Why?
on October 16,2013 | 09:45AM
AhiPoke wrote:
I'm no tea partiest nor republican but I believe kicking the can down the road is not a fix and shouldn't be celebrated. Democrats seem to think that there is an unlimited amount of money to be
on October 16,2013 | 07:54AM
ryan02 wrote:
The U.S. needs to cut military spending. The USSR, which existed solely to support a large military, collapsed under the financial pressure of keeping up its military and fighting in places like Afghanistan. But neither party will ever do that, because they cannot risk being accused of "soft on terror" or "against the troops" during election years. So instead they will cut funding in areas that will only transfer the cost from federal taxes to state or local taxes, like education or transportation. So instead of using federal taxes to pave highways, states will use state or county taxes instead. This doesn't SAVE taxpayers any money, it only replaces federal tax with state tax. But the states would not transfer military costs to the local level, so cutting military spending is a true savings to the taxpayers. But again, no politician will ever propose that because opposing politicians will use it as a reason to call them names. And Americans still care about childish name-calling. This country is financially doomed.
on October 16,2013 | 08:16AM
sluggah wrote:
Agree in spades! Eisenhower warned about the "military industrial complex", and he was right. They don't get to overcharge and overdo production if we're not out there killing. Term limits and stringent limits on lobbyists would help to ensure at least some honesty in gov't. Both parties are in the pockets of large corporations.
on October 16,2013 | 08:53AM
HD36 wrote:
The US dollar is no longer supported by gold. It's supported by military might.
on October 16,2013 | 06:16PM
ClearHeaded wrote:
Cave-in! Run for it! The whole intentional crisis was asinine. President Obama: You have compromised way too much already.
on October 16,2013 | 08:43AM
lihue96766 wrote:
Thought that all Congressmen/women took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the US when they started their term after they were elected. Those who were elected with an agenda, to change those laws, should use methods of congressional debate. revision, and compromise, not hold our country up to possible economic collapse. We might all remember those who defaulted on their pledge to us, the American people, just because they didn't like one of many many laws out there, put working people out of work (now going to be paid anyway! -- we should all get one of those jobs -- my pay only happens when I work) and totally inconvenienced our entire country, making our nation look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
on October 16,2013 | 08:50AM
Wonderful_World wrote:
You're right, Obama too should use that same playbook.
on October 16,2013 | 09:02AM
CriticalReader wrote:
No bill was ever put in front of Obama to force that hand, and none would have been because the Senate would never have passed a Tea Party deluded bill. What is interesting is what Obama's obligations and responses would have been if the debt ceiling was reached, and there wasn't enough to pay everybody. Would he make no payments even though there was cash flow money in the Treasury? Are their statutory priorities for distribution of money in those circumstances? Or, would complete discretion have rested with him? Seems mind boggling, but I think ultimately, he would have had some discretion in prioritizing payments.
on October 16,2013 | 07:37PM
false wrote:
Well folks, it looks like the can has been kicked down the road again. Poor can must be pretty dented by now. Ho hum till next Jan and Feb. when it comes to a head again. Bozo Obama doesn't have a clue as to how to manage. Somebody throw his red line stick away, better yet, beat him over the head till he shows some leadership.
on October 16,2013 | 09:12AM
serious wrote:
Correct, kick the can down the road and the Federal Union Workers can start planning on another paid vacation--thanks taxpayers!!
on October 16,2013 | 09:19AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Either the Senate is going to be permitted to bring negotiators to the table, or they're not. IF they are not, it will be because of GOP obstructionism, as it has been for the past 6 months, as Rubio (who wants to be President) primarily has been blocking letting the Senate. This is also how the GOP has shot itself in its foot. The GOP position is cut, but no increase in revenues - no tax increases. Now, the Democrats have a perfect opportunity to talk about tax rates and tax equity in a legislative context, not an election context. Ultimately, the GOP loses that battle. Either they look like the ignorant ideologues they actually are, or corporate protectionists. The numbers don't add up in that battle. Ted Cruz, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, the lunatic (Bachman), have actually empowered the Democrats in a way they never could on their own. But, in light of the constant amazement of what the Obama strategic apparatus repeatedly pulls off, you really gotta wonder if the Democrats and Obama actually directly planned all the steps leading up to this as well as the outcome. Remember, they're strategizing against the Tea Party. And, Tea Partiers seem to have what appear to be cognitive development problems including serious foresight deficit disorder.
on October 16,2013 | 09:49AM
Bully wrote:
We probably all got screwed over during this shutdown we just dont know what it is right now but Im sure it includes tax increases for the middle class.
on October 16,2013 | 09:15AM
username_required wrote:
I wish there was a law that required playing a loop of the Benny Hill closing music during all sessions of Congress.
on October 16,2013 | 09:30AM
soundofreason wrote:
I can hear it now. Most appropriate - and "the show" was for ALL our benefit. It's all ONE big game and they're both just playing their parts.
on October 16,2013 | 06:48PM
HD36 wrote:
WOW! Saved by government again! Using GAAP of accounting the annual deficit is more like $6 trillion a year because they don't include unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare. It wouldn't make a dent if we taxed everyone at 100%. Next year, according to John Williams of ShadowStats.com we will see the beggining of hyperinflation.
on October 16,2013 | 10:27AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Watch the difference in dignity that will come to focus as between Democrats and Republicans. It's an important difference and distinction. The Democrats have their feet on the throats of a GOP lying on its back tied to the floor. They could stomp. They won't. They will immediately become focused on progressing forward to the promised budget negotiations, in partisan fashion, but not cruelly, histrionically, or venomously. There is no doubt in my mind if the Tea Party had prevailed in any way in this battle, they would have killed the wounded using torture and disembowelment. Hopefully, this short episode causes people to watch with an educated and discerning eye the brand of leadership that is available. Hopefully, they will understand that true Americanism exists not in words, soundbites and the waiving of antagonistic, antiquated and antebellum flags, but in deeds and comportment that account for the dignity of all (except Tea Partiers).
on October 16,2013 | 12:11PM
HD36 wrote:
If the Tea Party would have prevailed we'd have a serious recession. Now with raising the debt ceiling we'll have hyper inflation. Much worse. By time you finish a meal the price could go up 25%.
on October 16,2013 | 06:09PM
Kahu Matu wrote:
This is so stupid. Nothing changes. The spending of the Democrats continues as the GOP caves at the last minute. Just like before and will be again. When you have enough media and Washington folks demonizing you, you give in. We need change and this does nothing to bring about change to our broken system and flawed policies. Obama and Dems win and no one cares about the people only their party interests.
on October 16,2013 | 12:11PM
SteveToo wrote:
Wimpy Republicans and spend crazy Democrats will bankrupt this once great nation.
on October 16,2013 | 12:40PM
SteveToo wrote:
Guess you can't use the word w-i-m-p here. But if the w-i-m-p-y Republicans and spend like crazy Democrats keep it up this once great nation will be broke like Greece.
on October 16,2013 | 12:42PM
Kuokoa wrote:
We'll, with the furloughs, they did save some spending! As far as Obama care, let it fail on its own. So far, a very small percentage of people who need health care have signed up. Secondly, when they see how their health care cost will go up, they will quit.
on October 16,2013 | 12:47PM
EightOEight wrote:
Businesses lost money, people couldn't pay their bills, it took 1.5 billion dollars a day out of the economy for each day of the shutdown according to Standard & Poors yesterday, and furloughed workers will get their back pay when the shutdown ends. And that's just some of the financial losses. What was gained?
on October 16,2013 | 01:36PM
sailfish1 wrote:
They didn't save anything with the furloughs. Those "nonessential" workers all got a FREE 2-3 WEEK PAID VACATION! The partial shutdown probably cost us several billion dollars more than if there was no shutdown.
on October 16,2013 | 02:39PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Wrong sport you are missing the 8.9 million who will be covered under medicaid expansion which is a fundamental part of the Affordable Care Act. It is likely that a couple of other states will change their minds and vote to expand as well so if anything this number will go up. Hey get used to having Obamacare around for a while. Between medicaid expansion and the healthcare exchanges you are probably going to see over 20,000,000 American obtain health insurance and once that happens there will be no going back.
on October 16,2013 | 03:29PM
BluesBreaker wrote:
Good point, HCB. All states will eventually adopt the Medicaid expansion since the red state leaders will be under increasing pressure to give their constituents what every other working poor person is getting. There's no stopping Obamacare. Too bad it's not single payer (Medicaid for everyone), but it's a start.
on October 16,2013 | 04:16PM
Oio wrote:
It makes no difference whether Congress pat themselves on the back in this sequential round of Same Old Same Old! The Debt is still there only the Ceiling Is Raised. Congress says, it'll give them "More time" to figure out a long-term plan and every body is like, HUH? Isn't this what you guys and gals were supposed to do these past several years, never the Sequestration "Fiscal Tally-HO Cliff", partial Government Shut Down, and not another dozenith-time to raising the Debt Ceiling? Maybe, someone should stipulate in the BILL, that when Congress fail to do their job, and drives the USA to the Brink, they pay and benefits get docked until they pick things up share the pain like all of us. As for being Republican, Democrat, Right or Left, this is bullsh*t. These terroristic actions don't deserve respectability of a moniker party name!
on October 16,2013 | 04:23PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on October 16,2013 | 04:38PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Yep and in the end 144 member of congress, all republicans, voted against increasing the debt limit and reopening government. That's right 144 member of congress voted to default.
on October 16,2013 | 05:18PM
HD36 wrote:
The problem is the debt, not the ceiling.
on October 16,2013 | 06:12PM
Ronin006 wrote:
No, HawaiiCheeseBall, they voted for fiscal sanity which Democrats lack.
on October 16,2013 | 09:34PM
ohelo wrote:
The Federal fiscal year used to begin on July1; they changed it to Oct. 1 because Congress couldn't pass the budget on time. Maybe they should move it to Jan. 1?
on October 16,2013 | 05:27PM
false wrote:
Big lost for the Republicans and the Tea Party! They wanted to defund Obamacare by threatening a national default and did not succeed.In the process, the shutdown cost the nations billions. What an imbecile strategy gone wrong!
on October 16,2013 | 06:18PM
sailfish1 wrote:
The shutdown cost us an additional $24 billion by one estimate. Now the returning furloughed workers, who got a FREE PAID VACATION, will get overtime to catch up on work which will cost us another $30 billion or thereabouts. As Congress tries to reduce the budget, all they did was increase the government cost. What joke those buffoons are.
on October 16,2013 | 06:22PM
shanik wrote:
It will be de ja vu in a couple months. These politicians are a joke and a disgrace. Simple answer is to limit their term to 4 years, 8 max
on October 16,2013 | 07:13PM
Bumby wrote:
The main thing that needs to be addressed is the debt and how it has grown. Currently the debt owed divideded by each citizen of America comes out to a little over $56,000.00. The way our lawmakers continue to increase our debt it will only get larger. It is time that all citizens become aware that if the debt continues to grow it will have a negative impact on a generation in the future. Is it a problem that needs to be corrected or do we let it continue on it merry path?
on October 16,2013 | 08:19PM
Bumby wrote:
Our lawmakers arbitrarily creates debt for their citizens. Is this the representatio we want? In addition will all these politicians be part of Obamacare? Why should they have a seperate health plan that is far superior than the average citizen.
on October 16,2013 | 08:33PM
Bumby wrote:
Will the politicians in Washington health care come under Obamacare? Who knows the answer to this.
on October 16,2013 | 08:37PM
Ronin006 wrote:
One giant step towards bankruptcy.
on October 16,2013 | 09:31PM
Breaking News