I am going to explain the FAA shutdown to you, since the mainstream media (uninterested in FACTS or INFORMATION--see the late Michale Crichton's "Airframe") never really did.
First, there is a long-standing dispute over FAA funding that has resulted in somw TWNEY "temrporary" funding measures for the FAA. In other words, the FAA has not had a regular funding bill in some 4 years. The problem is that Democrats want to make it EASIER to unionize workers under the jurisdictino of the FAA. Now all of the media is UNINTERESTED in explaining what that dispute is realy all about, and I am not intrested either (for ppurposes of this article). It is irrelevant.
Now look at those 20 "temporary" extensons of FAA funding. The mainstream media basically took the position--the Democrat position, as usual--that Democrats had a right to EXCPECT a "clean" extension of FAA funding. After all, what is wrong with a 21st extensioin.
Say whatg? What is WRONG with a DYSFUNCTIONAL government. It is like the Democrats not passing a budget in the Senate for more than two years, in violaton of the law. It is simplly absurd to keep running th egovernment with "temporary" extensions, as if that is a proper way to run a government. This violates "the law". And it is simply unconscionable. It looks likely for example, that we will AGAIN have some sort of "omnibus spending bill", or "continuing resolution", to fund the government starting on October 1 (the beginning of the next fiscal year). We are supposed to have a budget, and SEPARATE appropriatons bills--all required by law to be done well beefore September 30. One of my problems with the Repubicans, and even the Tea Party, is that the debt ceiling farce made it impossible to concentrate on the SPENDING bills for next year. Yes, I know that the debt ceiling "deal" addressed "spending", but I also know that the deal left the details of appropriations entirely open--not to mention only "cutting" a miniscule 21 billiong (or whatever number under 30 billion ou want to use) from next year's discretionay spending (while agreeing to spend MORe overall money next year than this year, with Obama pushing for bills that would ADD more to the deficit than the suppposed "saving").
Nope. The people of the mainstream media are dishonest political hacks. There is NO EXCUSE for 20 separate "temporary" extensions of FAA authority. I DARE anyone to tgry to defend the idea that such absurdity is acceptable. But that is the mainstream media position-parroting the Democrat position: that once we start doing the wrong thing we have to keep doing the wrong tihing, even though it is conclusive proof of a dysfunctional government. And we still ahve not gotten to the FAA shutdown, which had NOTING to do with the fight over rules for unionizing workers.
I think (again, the mainstream media--including Fox--is no help) that the House passed an FAA funding bill tht included the "fair" unionizing rules that the Repubicans want. But the Senate produced that same impasse that has resulted in 20 previous PUNTS as to Congressional responsibility. Okay, the House said. You Democrats are insisting that you will shut down the FAA, rather than give up on the union aiding rules lthat you want. We don't like that. But we are willing to "kick the can down the road" yet again, so long as we don't endorse the idea that we always have to extend the FAA on the SAME terms, FOREVER. Nope, The House did NOT put a Planned Parenthood provision in the bill (that part of tghe headline being explained below).
There are some 14 (or some such number) of rural aiports where lth eTICKETS are heaavily SUBSIDIZED by the Federal Government. These are airports with a substantial airport within 50 miles. We would be better off paying for a CAB RIDE for anyone in those areas wanting to go to a major airport nearby, instead of payinb thses massive subsidies. As this blog consistently says, beecause it is true: WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to keep makng this kind of expenditure. Years ago, I heard from one of my borthers that there is an airport in Pennsylvania--and I think I also saw it in an analysis of the Obama "stimulus"--where a single politician (Senator or some other man who is a POWER in his own mind) who uses lthis airport in Pennsylvania as virtually his private airport He is s apparently the ONLY regular passenger out of the airport, which often has NO passengers travellling through it on a given day.--especailly when you take away this politician. Now I don't want to vouch for the details of this, but this is what Republicans decided to do to emphsize their opposition to always "kicking the can down the road". Yes, you can see echoes of the debt ceiling debate in this, on a much smaller scale. But remember that President Obama promised--a lie by our Lirar-in-Chief--to go though EVERY spending bill "ine by line" to delete any unneeded spending. And he promised to do that BEFORE our debt crisis grew to its present absurd proportioins. Repubicans took him at his word, and thought that they could show their resolve on spending (and relieve a little of their frustration about running a government with "temporary" funding bills), by removing the absurd subsidies for these rural airports (all within driving disttance of a major airport).
No problem, right? Wrong. Surely Democrats would not put indefensible, massive subsidies (like a thosand dollarsa and more a ticket) ahead of all of those WORKERS who depedn on FAA funding? WRONG. Democrats DID put indefensible subsidies for a few rural airports ahead of what THEY said was the interest of more than 70,000 workers. Again, the House PASSED a bill that left out any new provisions, EXCEPT for the removal of these absurd subsidies. Having done its job, the House left town. However, Harry Reid and the Seante also LEFT TOWN, without passing the House bill. Why? Well, Democrats "insisted" on a "clean" bill--as if the FAA has a "right" to indefinite "temporary" extensions to the end of time, with no changes. Government jsut can't work this way. The headline of this article is absoutely right: Democrats were willing to SELL out those 70,000 workers, and the country, rather than delete indefensible subsidies from the spending that we can't afford. And it is not like Republicans were attaching an unrelated provision to the bill. These airport subsidies are under FAA jurisdiction.
Now my brother (same brother, although I have 4) thinks that the House should have simply said what I say above: "We DID our job, and it is up to the Seante to pas our bill. If the Seante does not, and Obama does not push them to do so, then THEY are the ones who are putting the interest of a very few people ahead of 70,000 workers." I think the sam e way as my brother, although I am not quite so sure I know what happened (because, again, the media was UNINTERESTEDD in the details of yet another "deal"). My brother thinks the Republicans SOLD OUT their principles yet again. It appears that way. Yet, those airport subsidies are supposedly being "evluated" by the head of the FAA. Thus, I am not quite sure where we are. The fact remains that both my brother and I would have SAID what I say above, as to the issue involved and Democrats selling out workers, and we are frustrated that Republicans simply refuse to say that kind of thing. WHY are Republicans not willing to talk about Democrats SELLING OUT workers, and the country, over very small things? Beats me. The DEMOCRTATS accuse the Republicans of it. It boggles my mind that Repubicans will not make the same attacks. In this case, it seems obviuos to me that the ball was in the Democrats' court, if Republicans had been willing to stand firm and ATTACK the Democrats (on the basis set forth above, if not necessarily in the same words). .
Democrats are asserting, with support from the mainstream media, that all they have to do is THREATEN to "shut down" some part of government, and Republicans are supposed to back off. Makes no sense to me. Sure, you can ASSERT taht Republicans were willing to "sell out" workers over those same rural airports by not giving in to Democrats. But who has the BETTER positon in this case? Isn't it a matter of who is more right and who is more wrong? If Republicans cannot even "cut" this kind of spending, WHAT are they gong to be able to "cut". Republicans had a principle at work here that was IMPORTANT--including the principle that we should not just "rubber stam" these "temporary" extensions that inculde wasteful spending. Democrats had NO such principle at work, beyond simply not wanting to "give n" to the Republicans.
Here is the AP/Yahoo headlie (BOYCOTTT YAHOO) on Friday or Saturday:
"Senate Dems gave way to GOP to end FAA shutdown."
Does PROPAGANDA get any more obvious than that. The intended implication is clearly that the GOP had no "right' to seek its "way", even if the GOP were right (as it was). Further, my borther and I are mad that the Repubicans failed to STAND UP to media basing on this, and jump all over Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. Yes, I understand that worker were cuaght in the middle, but it was DEMOCRATS putting absurd, very MINOR, SPENDING ahead of 60,000 workers. If Democrats are willing to SELL OUT workers for this SPENDING, and push matters to the brink on every failure of the House (the House's JOB) to spend what Democrats want to spend, then Standard and Porrs is right: There is NO HOPE of ever "getting our fiscal house in order" The whole idea of our Constitution is that our representatives determine what we SPEND, and it is actually absurd to keep DEMANDING a "riht' to spending at the same level (on pain of shutting the government down, and blaming the other side--couting on your PARTISANS in the mainstream media to cover you). You just don't get any worse than the AP--in no place and no time. You can argue that Republicans "gave way" at least as much, and probably more, than Democrats. The AP jsut put out PROPAGANDA, pure and simple, by a partisan organization.
Yep. My PUNISHMENT continues. I still have my Sodom and Gomorrah assignment: that futile search for an honest, competent AP reporter. There is still not whiff of such a strange thing existing. It is like lookng for a unicorn. BOYCOTT YAHOO (which relies totally on the AP for its featured stories). BOYCOTT AT&T (which feature Yahoo "News" on its "welcome" page of its internet service).
Oh. Panned Parfenthood. I bet you thought I forgot. You could not get that lucky. Remeber the previous "brinkmanship", where we ended up with that OTHER sham deal? Yes, I am talking abut the fight over spending for the last part of the current fiscal year, where "billioins" in "cuts" turned into NO real "cuts" at all. Message to Tea Party politicians: You ARE losing credibility here. Votes are NOT enough, when the vote is easy (no cahnce of winning). You need to FIGHT the leadership, and you WILL be held accountable if you do not. What does Planned Parenthood have to do with this? I could add NPR (National Public Radio) and NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)?
Democrats, AND OBAMA, wre say;ing that they would SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN rather than accept "defunding" of Planned Parenthood, NPR, and the NEA. Tell me exactly why that is not proof that Democrats were willing to again SELL OUT the country, and workers, in order to push their minor POLITICAL causes. Again, there is no excuse for funding NPR, PBS, and NEA. And at least half of the country (me included) regard Planned Parenthood as an EVIL organization--as bad as the Ku Klux Klan, although we are comparing apples and oranges. Would you vote funding the Ku Klux Klan as to its "good" activiites, so long as it kept its RACIST acitvities "separate"? Give me a brak. Thtt whole Panned Parenthood thing, indeed, showed WHO it is that is OBSESSED with "social issues". DEMOCRATS were willing to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT rather than give up FUNDING for their "social issue" partner. Note that we are NOT talking about making Planned Parenthood illegal, but only making it get its money from those Hollywood types, and billionaires, who don't believe it is an evil organization. That is what Democrats do: DEMAND FUNDING for their political allies--demand that TAXPAYERS fund the Democrat agenda (PBS and NPR included). It is like Republicans demanding government funding for Fox News not nearly as biased as PBS and NPR, although incompetent).
Q.E.D. Democrats ARE willing to SELL OUT this country for useless rural airports, Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS, and the NEA.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment