Here’s Senator Toomey:
“I’d like to defund Planned Parenthood, but I understand that Republicans don’t have complete control of the elected government,” Toomey said on MSNBC. “I think what we should do is cut spending as much as we can, get the policy changes that we can, but move on, because there are other, bigger battles that we are fighting.”
And here’s Senator Coburn:
COBURN: The one thing I’ve learned in my years here is there’s one reason to talk about something, if you want to talk about it, to create a political climate. There’s another, the common sense way is what can I really get done? What’s the realities of the situation? And my recommendation to my friends in the House is, you know, it’s highly unlikely that many riders are going to get passed with a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate, so why don’t you take the spending and let’s get on to the budget.
I think the senators are right that it would be folly to shut down the government for policy riders that will never become law with a Democratic Senate and White House. But it’s wise for House Republicans to draw the game of chicken out as long as they reasonably can. If the Democrats think they are willing to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding (as Mike Pence has said he is), then they are likely to at least offer concessions.
What might be much more useful at this point is for these Republican senators to criticize the Democrats for threatening to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood. Both these sentators have in the past exhibited a strong case of "reachoutitous" and this is an example. Make the Democrats squirm over a reprehensible stand they're taking. Don't call on your own side to back down. Boehner is showing real courage by trying to get Planned Parenthood defunded. That should be the talking point of our side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWouldn't a shutdown cost more than funding Planned Parenthood? You can't be serious about cutting spending if you'd rather spend more money on a shutdown than Planned Parenthood.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've been very critical of leadership in the house but too many senators on our side are even a weaker lot.
Maybe someone needs to remind Toomey that Republicans held all three branches of government for six years under Bush and yet funding continued for Planned Parenthood.
Sorry Senator, but it's not like we have a lot of confidence in you guys to EVER do the right thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand the logic behind the Senators' comments, but when do we draw that line in the sand, when do we stand up for what we believe is right and reject - not compromise on - what we believe is wrong? Setting aside the specific case of Planned Parenthood, why does the federal government continue to fund non-profit organizations that clearly do not meet the requirements of non-profit organizations and how long are the American people going to look the other way while it does?
Americans who live on a budget know that when money is limited they have to be wise and practical about what they choose to spend their money on. Thus, they aren't going to allow their children to miss a few meals so they have money to donate to their favorite charity. Yet, that's exactly the kind of inappropriate choices Washington politicians make on a daily basis. Spending wisely isn't something they understand because their impulse is to spend based on political expediency, not practical reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason, the rider is not make-or-break for me, but that's a false comparison. Take the moral component out of it, what you guys (and I'm assuming you're either a liberal or a pro-choice libertarian) want is PERPETUAL funding for PP. The pro-rider folks want to set this as a marker that the feds have no business funding this - or NPR, or Obamacare, etc - now or ever again in the future. It's a "proper role of government" argument as much as it is a fiscal one.
Whatever the one-time cost of a shutdown, it's surely exeeded by the cost of permanent funding for PP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow effective is the gambit, though, when everyone knows what it is? There's no good outcome here. If a last minute deal comes though without the Planned Parenthood defunding then the message is that the Republicans were just bluffing (read lying) about this being important to them, there is no reason the Democrats will come away with the impression that the Republicans are willing to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood (since, in that scenario, they obviously aren't).
Conversely, if the government shuts down and the narrative remains that Planned Parenthood was the sticking point, I have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans are going to feel like it was worth shutting down the government over.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem here is that you can't make a case for defunding PP that would put pressure on the Dems when you're facing the possibility of a shutdown. The specter of a shutdown completely dominates the news, and any logical reason for defunding is ignored.
It's even tougher when Boehner won't make the case when he's getting time on all the cable nets, as he did twenty minutes ago, in the little press conference outside the Capital.
Instead of talking about specific points of contention, he said that they were in agreement on most policy points. When asked directly if it was about PP, he repeated his prior statement.
Maybe this is a good negotiating tactic, but it the PP funding IS the sticking point, it seems to me that it is not worth shutting down the government AT THIS TIME.
Just bury the defunding of PP in the 2012 budget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Boehner is showing real courage by trying to get Planned Parenthood defunded. That should be the talking point of our side."
And you'll lose. Because shutting down the government to remove a few million dollars in funding for STD testing and treatment (because, of course, as everybody but ill-informed conservatives knows PP can't use federal money for abortion under the Hyde amendment) is going to make Republicans look like fanatics to the VAST majority of Americans, whether they're pro-choice or not, don't think that defunding PP is the kind of thing worth shutting down the entire government for.
If you stepped outside of the conservative media bubble, you'd realize this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"the VAST majority of Americans, whether they're pro-choice or not, don't think that defunding PP is the kind of thing worth shutting down the entire government for."
Perhaps. But you could say the same thing about every single government program. Which item in the budget WOULD the vast majority of Americans support shutting down the government to remove? This is an argument supporting the status quo and empowering the Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Which item in the budget WOULD the vast majority of Americans support shutting down the government to remove?"
Right, the vast majority of Americans don't want their government shutdown in order to remove funding for a budget item. I think you've nailed it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"because, of course, as everybody but ill-informed conservatives knows PP can't use federal money for abortion under the Hyde amendment)"
Yes, because funds aren't fungible.
I really am curious - when somebody writes something this completely obtuse, do they know they're being obtuse? I mean do they sit down at their computer and think to themselves, "I'll totally astound these guys with my little quip because they surely aren't capable of logical thought."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Shawn
"Whatever the one-time cost of a shutdown, it's surely exeeded by the cost of permanent funding for PP."
I'm not at all sure this is true. I worry that people aren't taking the possible consequences of this particular shutdown seriously enough. The economic recovery is still very tentative and could easily be derailed by a protracted government shutdown. At best, the economic effects of a shutdown are uncertain, and taking that chance seems really irresponsible. If the shutdown were to kick off a double dip recession that finally sent us over the cliff, objections to permanent defunding of Planned Parenthood will be pretty silly in comparison.
And even if another economic collapse might help get Obama out of office, anyone who cares about America should not be rooting for things to get worse (and honestly, anyone who thinks that their only path to electoral victory is economic catastrophe doesn't have much faith in the power of their ideas).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe headline reads "Federal Employees Brace For Government Shutdown." And the story begins: "About 800,000 employees nationwide face juggling life without a paycheck." Powerful stuff, but probably more hype than truth.
I worked for the federal government during a shutdown. It lasted only a few days, most Americans didn't even notice and I didn't miss a single pay check. Pounding the panic button is exactly what politicians want us to do, so let's not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCut off the funds for Planned Parenthood - now - and in fact, it should have been done yesterday! And for NPR. They are both vile organizations that should not be allowed to live off the public dime. Let them raise funds privately, since they believe that they are so "worthy". And yes, the bread and butter of PP is abortion. This business about "women's health" is nothing but a vapid talking point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you read between the lines Boehner is not going to shut the government down just over PP. He's using it as a marker. The Ds can clear this issue off the table by agreeing to more cuts but they are refusing to do so, but they will ultimately end up there.
The way it will likely play out is Reid will continue to hit the Rs on the side of the head with this fake messaging, then, at the last minute, offer a few billion more cuts in exchange for PP funding, and Boehner takes the deal. Both sides can then say they won. Even BO will sign a short-term CR if it includes funding for PP.
I think everybody in DC know that's the theatre. Reid still wants a little more time scoring political points with woman's groups, though, before making the deal. With Reid, this has very little to do with what's best for the country. It's a chance to score points from his bully pulpit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no bigger battle than protecting unborn babies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRJG, I'm not seeing it from a "protect the economy" angle.
Affected federal workers number, what, 800,000? Out of a 135 million-plus labor force, and we're not even talking about salaries foregone, but merely delayed? Drop in the bucket, and I think the economy is not nearly so fragile as many around here perceive, anyway.
Look back historically: March of 1996, not 45 days after the Gingrich shutdown, payrolls topped 700k in just that one month. If that's economic poision, let's have another round on the house!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm dissappointed in this signalling of surrender on the PP funding. Why can't Coburn and Toomey force the Democrats to ask "what can I really get done?" If Republicans stand by their principles and demand that we not be forced to pay for an organization like PP, Democrats would be forced to ask themselves that question. Why is it that pro-lifers are always the one to give in?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Paul Zummo
You obviously have no idea how institutional budgets work, particularly those supported by federal funds. Why don't you look it up, then come back and argue.
@flenser
"Perhaps. But you could say the same thing about every single government program. Which item in the budget WOULD the vast majority of Americans support shutting down the government to remove? This is an argument supporting the status quo and empowering the Democrats."
Is this supposed to be a counter-argument? The idea that you should consider shutting down the government over any single line item disagreement is daft, and the vast majority of Americans--who, remember aren't ideologically committed one way or the other-- will think so too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemanding social policy riders and then giving up on them is the worst kind of strategy. First, we will never win those arguments because the media won't allow it. The story becomes a woman's right to choose versus the enormous amount of debt we are piling on. And then, when we give in, the dems look like heros for saving planned parenthood and funding for the arts. I'm sorry folks, but republicans need to, for the moment, ignore the desire to go after the dem's sacred cows and remain solely focused on cutting spending in a substantial and measurable way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse