Agreed. That's the way to go.

This is disingenuous. The Federal Government has been "shut down" before. When this happens, the President's job is to use his available funding to ensure that critical government functions -- like prison guards, national security and the like -- continue. Generally speaking, the government sends home "non-essential" and non-emergency personnel -- which constitutes the vast bulk of the Federal workforce. Government offices and national parks are closed, but air traffic controllers and prison guards remain on duty. If the President orders prison guards sent home and airports closed, it will be entirely his decision -- done for political purposes. The Federal Government has enough income coming in August to fund bond payments, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and pay essential Federal personnel. Obama's threat to not carry out his moral duty is simply that -- a vicious threat against the public.

First, allow me to respectfully suggest that all of you reading this call your Representative's office and ask 1) If he/she has signed the letter; 2) If not, does he/she plan to; 3) If not... why not.

Second, to those of you with Republican Senators, ask your Representative to pressure your Republican Senator(s) to unseat McConnell from his leadership post.

(And, yes, of course you can all call your Republican Senators directly; it's just that the House needs to realize that a RINO Senate will bring them down and so it's in their interest as elected officials who hope to be re-elected to "butt their noses into" the Republican Senate Caucus' business.

Joe Walsh is my friend, and a fine Congressman!

It would be pretty dumb to sign the letter. Eventually, they are going to have to agree to the McConnell plan (or some other clean debt ceiling plan) on a whether-they-like-it-or-not basis. The public is not going to be pleased that the party of small government is withholding their Social Security checks, and no amount of PR will ever convince the American people that the party of "big government" is the reason for the entitlements stopping (hence why they caved in 95).

The question is how much damage the Republican party does to themselves (and for how many years/decades the damage lasts) while they wait to cave -- not WHETHER they are going to cave. Given that they are going to cave eventually, why make it that much harder with a letter taking the opposite position than they are eventually going to take?

Just how exactly did that work out for you in 1932?

You are correct that we will have a two party system. But the new Republican party that would form after the self-destruction of the old one would be an Eisenhower-type party -- one that promises a radical departure from the old philosophy, and promises not to undo all the progress the Democrats made.

Sure, that would leave out the 10%-libertarian contingent to continue to post on NR. They might even splinter and give Democrats even more power. But regardless, if you want to completely discredit the entire idea of "small government" with 80% of the population, the absolute best way to do that is to force Obama to show the country just exactly what the Republicans mean by "small government."

Stop trying to scare grandma. There is more than enough in monthly revenue to pay entitlements and debt service. There is not enough to keep other major parts of the government going and that is its own issue. But its not your grandmas problem.

And you are assuming that they are going to cave. Cave to what? My guess is that the President caves and the Republicans pass a short term increase with cuts only and this will have to be replayed during the next election. That's what worries the President and Democrats the most.

It's pretty dumb to call almost 100 Congressmen who have signed this letter "dumb". I think they know better than you how this will all end up.

For starters, they haven't succumbed, as you have, to the scare tactics of the left and the MSM about not releasing social security checks. It was highly irresponsible for Obama to say that the government would not be paying out social security on August 2nd because the government is actually obligated to pay it.

For the month of August, the federal government has projected revenues of $172.4 billion and projected expenditures of $306.7 billion leaving a deficit of $134.3 billion. Projected expenditures include $29 billion for interest on Treasury Securities, $49.2 billion for Social Security benefits, and $50 billion for Medicare/Medicaid payments, a total of $128.2 billion.

Current revenues for the August 2011 period in question are sufficient to prevent government default and to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits with an estimated $44.2 billion left over for payments toward other government obligations.

Once the public sees their entitlement checks continuing to flow, the momentum will quickly shift from the scare tactics of the Democrats to the more sensible solution, and the only legislative solution to date, from the House. Those Tea Party Republicans will have strengthened their hand and will become a force to be reckoned with in any future "deal".

Eric, if social security checks do not go out in August it will be because the Obama administration made a conscious, political choice not to send them out. The funds will be there.

The Treasury would have to prioritize how the remaining funds would be spent. The point being, a short-term solution would then be needed, one which would then inure to the benefit of Republicans once the public had seen the entitlement checks go out. The Dems won't be able to go the scare tactic route a second time.