The government shutdown is, in some ways, a really easy story to understand–if the press wants to report it that way. The Republican House passes a spending bill that would fund the federal government–and defund or delay certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate, with its Democratic majority, refuses to pass this bill. So that’s the stalemate, right? That’s the way the media report it.
PBS anchor Judy Woodruff (10/1/13) told viewers:
Republicans refused to budge on their demands to delay parts of the president’s healthcare law. Democrats remained adamantly opposed to those demands.
On NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams (9/30/13) reported:
The simplest way to put it is this: The Republican-controlled House is passing bills the Democratically controlled Senate keeps rejecting. The bills would keep the government operating while stopping aspects of the new healthcare law. And that’s where we are.
USA Today‘s Susan Page (10/2/13) observed that the shutdown was “the latest and most dramatic demonstration of an increasingly dysfunctional capital” where “the traditional ways of reaching compromises no longer apply.” She explained that “House Republicans have insisted on defunding or delaying Obamacare, a demand the White House and Senate Democrats have flatly rejected. Rock, meet hard place.”
That’s true, in a way–but also misleading. The House could hold a vote on a spending bill along the lines of the Senate bill–one that funds the government without trying to undermine Obamacare–what’s called a “clean CR,” or continuing resolution. And congressional observers say it would pass, supported by a majority of representatives–if House Speaker John Boehner would allow it to come up for a vote.
But Boehner, following the lead of a minority of his own party, is committed to a strategy–shutting down much of the federal government unless the Senate agrees to gut a law that was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court–that is unprecedented in its extreme approach to getting one’s way in Washington.
But this hardly gets the attention it deserves. A front-page USA Today piece (9/30/13) made this admission near the very end of a front page piece about the looming shutdown:
Boehner could put the “clean” Senate-passed funding bill on the House floor, where it would likely pass on the support of House Democrats with some Republicans, but he is under pressure from conservative lawmakers and outside groups to hold the line.
Pointing this out, though, would challenge the media to declare one side more responsible for a crisis than the other–something establishment news outlets are disinclined to do. There have been some exceptions–like a Huffington Post report (10/2/13) bluntly titled, “John Boehner Could End Shutdown Today if He Wanted To,”
But the press is full of “everyone’s behaving badly” stories and punditry. Pundit Stuart Rothenberg on the PBS NewsHour (10/1/13), for instance, lamented that “I think both sides have just staked out a very extreme position, portraying the other side as full of ill will and anger and extreme and uncompromising.” The Washington Post had an article (9/30/13) about the partisan messaging war: “In Shutdown Blame Game, Democrats and Republicans United: It’s the Other Side’s Fault.”
The Post explained that there was a “heated back-and-forth” about blame, acknowledging that “the challenge is steepest for the GOP, which faces a hardening public perception that it is primarily to blame for setting the crisis in motion.”
That “perception” also happens to be reality. But insider journalists seem too unwilling to just say so. The Washington Post‘s Dan Balz (10/1/13) wrote that the “two warring parties…. had a similar message: The fault lies elsewhere for the disruptions that the closures will produce.”
Balz seemed pretty clear about who he thought was more to blame. He wrote that Barack Obama was lobbing “rhetorical grenades” at the GOP, and that “his healthcare law… is the sole reason the government is partly shuttered and the political system in the capital paralyzed.” That’s a very odd way of looking at the conflict, to say the least.
Balz added that Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s “dismissals of the Republican tactics grow more flagrant and inflammatory by the day, which is not likely to serve Democrats well in the long run.”
The truth is that the shutdown is the work of a small group of House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner. Media like to dismiss the partisan “blame game,” but in cases like this placing blame is something that journalism ought to do. Because there’s nothing that promotes political irresponsibility more than the knowledge that whatever you do, the media will blame both sides equally.
Truth Seeker
Looks like the NYT all of a sudden realized what the problem was: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/opinion/john-boehners-shutdown.html?_r=0
Jack Y
Blah blah blah…so it’s OK for the Prez to “delay” implementation of the law for corporations and allow “exemptions” for various well connected companies and DC cronies in govt, and lets just rewrite history deleting the fact that the Dems rammed through without any bipartisan support and dicey public support in ’09…without allowing congress to read it first remember? That’s all fine. That the Constitution allows the House to control the purse (for specific reasons like this) and both parties have used parliamentary procedures forever to do similar things with votes…but this time it “clearly one parties fault”.
Hilarious! I love it when FAIR’s party hack stripes come out in full force and reveal it to be another shill operation. Pathetic attempt obvious to people with critical thinking skills (and that know history) but the “Truth Seekers” out there will all fall in line as usual. Sad…sad…sad. Both parties have screwed this all up and that the people in this country are simply asking to be treated the same as Congressional staffers (that otherwise “clean bill” was rejected by your beloved Dem Senate remember? I assume you don’t SINCE YOU LEFT THAT OUT!) and corporations that have another year before they are forced to pay their “fee” by violent threat of wealth confiscation (you love the violence when it’s “your side” don’t you?) isn’t “democracy” anymore I guess. Shame on you (again) Peter. Your stuff is pretty weak on here and very transparent of an operative.
Steven Newsom
Just as easily the Senate could end the Shut down today.
marcus robinson
those last two commenters are frickin idiots.
Aron A
To Jack Y —
Please point out the part of the Constitution where it says that a Law is only legal if a member of both political parties votes for it. As a matter of fact, please point out where in the constitution political parties are mentioned at all.
Also, have you forgotten that laws were passed by the Republicans under George Bush that were straight part-line votes? Are those open game too? How far back should we go in deciding which laws we can ignore because one party or the other supported it and the other party hated it?
What the Republicans have done here is like this:
Reps: “Hey neighbor, either let me burn down your home or I’ll steal your car.”
Dems: “No, you cannot steal my car or burn down my house.”
Reps: “Oh yeah? Well how about I’ll burn your house down unless you let me steal your T.V.?”
Dems: “No, you can’t do either of those things either.”
Reps: “Well, for goodness sake — I’ve offered you more than one thing here. If you don’t eventually accept one of these options, then YOU are being unreasonable!”
In this case, it is not “compromise” to accept that the only options available are destruction or more destruction. This is especially true when there is a viable alternative where NO destruction is required. What the Republicans are offering are false choices.
Jack Y
I notice neither Aron or Marcus (who just calls people names apparently…nice…where’d you learn that from this week?:-) spoke to my points about fairness with the exemptions. Huh? Wonder why?
And Aron…the Constitution doesn’t say anything about parties…you’re right so really your first question is moot. but because I know the premise you’re debating I will answer in the affirmative…YES, one half of Congress has checks and balances against the rest of government it can choose to use at any time to try and change laws. In the House (and there’s a reason it’s in the House because it was the “common people’s” chamber) the power is in the funding mechanism. I wish the House would have defunded all the wars Bush started or the Patriot Act and DHS…don’t you? Would you have claimed some idiotic analogy to them burning down a neighbors house (the vitriol never stops I guess…even with poorly framed analogies) because they wanted to end a war by defunding it? I wouldn’t have then and I don’t now. The problem is you are all Democrats who want to pretend your radicals. You can pretend it…but until you become objective and treat both parties critically across the board it’s all just to fool yourselves I guess. Many of us on here see right through it so take that game somewhere else if you want to play it and not be called out on it. And Marcus…really, add something at least instead of just acting like a sycophant.
NictheRellek
@ Jack
If they want or need to do tweaks to ACA the do that but its ridiculous to shut down the whole machine because they don’t like or want something thats a law. Back in 94 the reps came up with what would become Obamney care as a way of killing Hillarycare. The thing was it was a viable alternative (one they NEVER intended to use) but this time around they didn’t even go thru the pretense of coming up with something as a viable alternative to HCR. The mantra has always been repeal with scant few details on what to replace it with which basically means returning to the status quo. From 94 to 2006 the GOP controled both sides in congress and from 00 to 06 they controlled both branches of govt and in all that time the subject of HCR never came up. But they had money and means to maintain two theaters of war for 10+ years. All of this is political posturing thats hurting real people in real life. And its coming from one side more than the other.
Aron A
Hey Jack Y –
First of all (have to get this out of my system…) GO CARDINALS!!!
Okay — showing too much skin here…
Agreed that Congress COULD act to defund military action and COULD act to defund intelligence departments (NSA), but there is something to be said for showing a united front to the world. Though I eventually realized that Iraq/Afghanistan were mistakes, I’m not sure that simply zeroing them out would have been the right thing to do.
As for your “fairness” issue — you are trying to bait us into a debate, the boundaries of which you have already falsely laid. I disagree that the modifications made were only for Democratic cronies. I disagree that congressmen weren’t allowed an opportunity to read the bill. (That has become urban myth — you have a staff and you are all literate. Do your homework.) And I disagree that the whole thing was “rammed through”… I was alive at the time and paying attention and it dragged on for a long time; the media was saturated with stories of the ongoing debate and machinations.
George Bush used a lot of signing statements to get around the rules he didn’t like. Obama has done some of the same. Though it angers me when the Executive branch overreaches, I believe that they have the duty to interpret and enforce all of the day-to-day minutae (sp) of a lot of federal agencies and programs. Making an executive decision is not the end of Democracy (as you suggest), it is governance. The delay in the employer mandate is not some sneaky give away to businesses — it is a rational step taken after recognizing the difficulties in implementing a complex new system. Similar things happened with the implementation of Medicare — employers didn’t do their withholding correctly at first. They were not thrown in jail. Rather, the Johnson administration directed the IRS to send directives to employers telling them how to fix it in the future. Barry Goldwater acted as if those few missed payments were the end of the world. He was wrong.
As for your whole “violent threat of wealth confiscation” terminology, well, I call that hyperbole. You question FAIRs political leanings, but my reading of his post is that it is rational and thought out. His most hyperbolic statement is the last sentence, and that is spot-on, not incendiary.
I think that in political spirit (what we both hate or like) we are very similar. The difference I think is that you are one of the people I see to often of late that reflexively call anything Obama does “wrong”, even if it is what YOU would have done only 5 minutes earlier. Fox News is guilty of this all the time, and I don’t need a rehash. You seem to know better than that. Bring your good stuff.
Eric John
“Also, have you forgotten that laws were passed by the Republicans under George Bush that were straight part-line votes? Are those open game too?”
Nailed it.
Essentially then we should revisit every law ever passed along party line and hold legislation and the budget for ransom until we Democrats get what we think is right for America.
As ludicrous as it sounds, that’s exactly what the GOP leadership believes is the right course.
Kenneth E
Hey Jack, first of all the CR bill is only funding the government for a short time and has nothing to do with the ACA, it should be a clean funding bill, no strings attached. The GOP could activaly work with the Dems to help improve the ACA, but they do not want it to be a success, of course you know that. Again for the GOP power before people.
Lorcan Bonda
Everyone is still missing the crux of this issue — this shutdown is intentional political drama which avoids any discussion of substantive issues at all. This isn’t about Obamacare or the budget — it is a slight of hand. Wealthy elite are robbing us blind while we argue about nothing. Both parties support this strategy — George H.W. Bush proved thirty years ago that the one thing worse than accomplishment is compromise (“How dare he!” both sides complained, and the news agreed.)
Jack Y
I appreciate the thoughtful responses from everyone. Excuse my long ‘essays’ here. I just hate the soundbite culture these days as so much gets lost.
First of all, I don’t think you can just wash your hands at the pretext of violent recourse that government in a general sense uses to institute everything it does. It’s not hyperbole…it’s definitive to a government’s existence and is the underlying aspect that allows it to control people historically. The more governments have a say in your day to day life the more you are being threatened with violence…although most people experience cognitive dissonance toward it now, just given up and except it and hope that we all get lucky enough to have somewhat benevolent leaders forever because if not, things go bad very quickly as the human wreckage of political history exemplifies. As a classical liberal my core belief is that violence begets violence and is only justified in clear self-defense…and as the state expands it is natural to see forms of violent responses to it no matter the geography or time period in which that state exists…because the state, again, uses the threat of violence to enforce everything it does. So in minimal instances that monopoly on legitimized violence which the state claims (although the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in our BOR challenges that as noted in the Federalist Paper arguments) is required to protect the equality of natural rights of others. This ‘equality of natural rights’ is too often confused with what some have conflated in to the right to ‘equality of conditions’…which necessitates using the threat of state violence to confiscate property from others to be ‘achieved’ (if that’s even possible if progress is the goal) and thus negates the equality of natural rights in the process. This can seem pedantic, but it shouldn’t be as it is the premise for freedom and anyone interested in regaining freedom in this manifestly corporatist nation we now find ourselves living in.
This then leads us to the primary point here. I don’t like the Republican Party any more than the Democratic Party as they both serve as PR fronts for corporatist elites in general and have served their needs as a release valve for the last century at least…and a mode for distraction as Lorcan points out. And the primary issue being hidden during this manufactured “crisis” is the real crisis…that once again massive wealth transfers from the young (and yet to be born) to the old are happening just this time in the form of passing a law that will expand the debt of the nation which holds all citizens accountable for it (in theory), but it is hoped by the corporatist elite that it will be far enough in the future that they will have no short term responsibility for it (and this will eventually happen…never in history hasn’t a ‘day of reckoning’ occurred when govts en-debt themselves so massively). The inclusion of Medicare Aron is somewhat ironic in making this point actually. As this article notes (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-30/opinions/35455899_1_medicare-web-site-medicare-benefits-trust-fund), “Put another way, Medicare is a transfer of wealth from younger to older Americans.” The stats are just that…the stats. It is being used to the buy votes of older Americans (and if you haven’t had the chance to read “Democracy in America”, the de Tocqueville classic, you will see where that leads) at the expense of the less powerful younger/future generations. And the scenario mentioned as to how to implement such a large program was of course meant to suggest it is all just part of a successful process (and that violence wasn’t acted on/although still the threat) but in fact your description Aron best represents the frog in the proverbial pot. That those employers weren’t thrown in jail then was simply a keen strategy to take the air out of critics of the time, and to disguise what the future danger of such a program of wealth confiscation actually was…because of course, violence is used today to force participation in Medicare and if an individual chooses to be paid in cash to get around paying those taxes, violence will be used against them if they are found out.
I’m not going to get in to a debate over FOX or any other pseudo news operation…they are all corporatist news organizations and that more than anything else dominates their SPIN. They circle the wagons across the board (MSNBC, FOX, ABC, etc.) when the corporatist agenda is being served and call it ‘bipartisanship’ (which in my life I have learned to recognize as the rhetorical alarm bell telling me to be worried about my freedoms and safety when politicians or the media mention that term). And Bush and Obama are corporatist front men…I argued the same when Bush expanded government in to everyone’s lives just like I am when Obama has done so. It’s actually easier to be this way because you are just looking at policies and not being played by identity politics (which unfortunately FAIR sometimes devolves in to). The continuity of agenda is much more important in understanding the history of US government over the last century than parceling out the minor differences.
I hope no one would deny that the current President has expanded the police state in this country as much (if not more so) than the last. How is that not part of the context when viewing any large expansion of government whether it be this “Affordable Care Act” (politicians like to call things the opposite of what they are…”Patriot Act” for example:-) which is our corporatist healthcare system on steroids. Don’t you think there is a data mining aspect to all of this? As the government as a whole tries more and more to dictate your everyday choices, manipulate benefits away from you and to the crony elite class, and monitor you in every way possible, why would you give any of them (no matter what fake party they pretend to be a part of) the benefit of the doubt? I just don’t get it. I wish someone could tell me why this President or the leadership of either Party deserves it. It’s time to revisit Enlightenment principles folks. None of this is new and I hate to break the news to anyone here that your dear leaders don’t care about you…so you have to be suspicious when they claim they do. This isn’t about being anti-anything…it’s just taking an honest approach to understanding the nature of government historically.
Cheryl
Jack Y. —- WHO influenced the President to give that extension to businesses? Was pressure brought onto the President? Have Republicans been finding ways to delay or abolish the law? Like trying to repeal it some 45 times?? Spending MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$$ to take away a health care plan that SO MANY WANT AND NEED? The BUSINESSES are the ones moaning and whining, along with the greedy Republicans. Your post is totally asinine, and Republicans DEFAULTING on bills they racked up during the Bush regime and put on America’s credit card for TWO illegal wars and HUGE CONTINUING TAX CUTS is totally INSANE. Not only that, but demands to abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with demands to approve the Keystone XL pipeline AND throwing in things like ending birth control for women? SERIOUSLY? You don’t see the insanity in these petty greedy demands and holding the whole country hostage and refusing the raise the debt ceiling until the President caves in to their childishness?? THIS is NOT leadership on the part of Republicans. Thank heavens Democrats are working FOR the people, rather than corporations, in these matters. And as of now, the MAJORITY of Americans are putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of these wacko Republicans, which is exactly where it should be. At this point, even REPUBLICAN DONORS and contributors are reluctant to put their support behind them and are not writing checks. Banks and Wall St. and other businesses are beginning to worry about the fallout, as well as other countries. The KNOW where Republicans are taking this! Right off a cliff.
Jack Y
Cheryl–You have the talking points down…expressing them toward me is a bit odd since none of them directly spoke to anything I actually said. It’s kind of ironic and funny though, since the article was implying that the “persuasive message” you so aptly scribed is supposedly the “blame” that was lacking in the media according to Mr. Hart. Amazing coincidence I’ve read everything you have said in the MSM media in the last three days I guess. Huh?
Not much more needs to be said…your post stands as a wonderful example of the continuing success of the dog and pony show that is “partisanship” in the wholly owned corporatist system. You apparently missed the fact that I didn’t parcel blame. It’s equally shared. And don’t think no one noticed you didn’t counter one specific point I made.
Don Macleay
Thanks for this. I am neither a Dem nor a Rep. I am a Green and do not like either of the official parties much and do not really find our system all that democratic. What do you say about a national legislature with only one opposition member out of two houses? In this case I feel that the press is not pointing out that the only relationship between Obamacare and the continuing resolution is that the Republicans in the house are making it their price to play ball. The fact that the Senate version of the bill is not even being allowed to come up for a vote is very important.
I would like it if FAIR gave us more background on this. Are any media talking about the lopsided nature of this conflict? What is the history? Has anyone ever demanded to kill a law that they did not like just to pass a budget extension? Good report as far as it goes, but I would also like to know what well considered partisan opinions are not being heard. Sanders I saw on line. Chomsky? And on the right? What kind of legitimate analysis is being ignored in favor of this knee jerk he-said she-said reporting. As you point out on your show, this is exactly the framework the corporate press likes to pidgin hole everything into. “both sides’ of the story with no real challenge to either’s statements.
ed soja
If they can’t agree then they should shut down the government. The only problem is they are still paying the arguing whiners in the house senate and whitehouse. They should not get a dime or a day off until they can cut enough spending to balance the budget. I wonder if the foreign aid is still being paid out. That’s the first thing I’d cut! NO FOREIGN AID… Til we get our own mess straight!!!
richard barr
To be fair, MSNBC has been very clear in putting the blame where it lies on this issue, with the GOP (while of course Fox tries to put it in reverse on the Dems). No false equivalencies from these two outlets, just polar opposites as concerns those 2 parties.
Jack Y
A good article for context. I would doubt anyone (well, maybe Cheryl:-) here would claim Factcheck.org is some kind of right wing operation. It’s a very fair article…and you have to love the quotes they have in it from Obama (when he was a Senator) and Bush II repeating exactly what is being said now…but it a seemingly political alter-universe…haha. It starts with Lew’s claim, but goes on to show how both parties have flip flopped over the years depending on their positions in the government structure.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/07/lew-distorts-facts-on-jobs-debt-ceiling/
Douglas Kelban
The biggest problem with the media is their complete cowardice in not calling politicians lies, exactly that. Like in congress, there is this phony culture of politeness in the left wing media that allows right wingers to lie day in and day out without being bluntly called on it, and being exposed as to whose interests they are protecting, and why ( follow the money ). Perhaps, like congress people who only care about re-election, “journalists” only care about getting the liars back on their shoe, again.
tishado
The press arguments for balance sound all too much like the excuses for abusers that their wives “drove them to it.” There have been plenty of things Republicans have done in my lifetime that drove the Democratic base crazy and yet somehow they have managed not to play chicken with the budget or the debt ceiling.
michael e
Read the article by Thomas Sowel called who shut down the government.It cuts through Obamas the lies told by him and his lap dog press.He really has become a serial liar.And thank God for the tea party.Shoring up weak kneed Rs AND Ds by bringing the truth and refusing to play the Washington games.Also look at the interview Jon Stewart does with Cath Sybilious where he stares in disbelief at her answers to his hard hitting question.Mocking her.Once you on the left have lost him……you REALLY have lost this argument!
michael e
Jack Y…..I find some of the things you say to be outside the normal “tail to ass parade” following of most libs.Other things make me scratch my head.So out with it.Lets know who you are.What are your feelings on the constitution and the bill of rights?On full blooded capitalism?On socialism?On the spending,printing,and borrowing of money against the public trust?Is there a polititian who represents you?