Skip to main content

U.S. Capitol building at sunset.
The House, anxious to get out of town fast for the next two-week recess, passed the continuing resolution to fund the government for the next six months in a 318-109 vote Thursday morning. The bill funds the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. Yes, all this angst for just six months of funding.

The spending bill doesn't reverse the $85 billion sequester cuts, but it does shift some spending within departments to try to mitigate some of the worst cuts to things like child nutrition programs, meat inspection and tuition assistance for military service members. But it's a Band-Aid, and lessening the pain for those programs only took away funding from other ones. The painful, damaging sequester continues.

While there won't be a government shutdown next week, this isn't a resolution of the sequester overall; it's just authorizing spending for the next six months. So while one crisis was averted, it's only a temporary fix and Congress will have to pass another short-term spending bill when this one expires—that is, if the House, Senate and White House don't concur on a budget and series of appropriation bills between now and September. (As if that could happen given what House Republicans passed in the way of a budget.)

But the next continuing resolution is going to be a mere hiccup compared to the next debt ceiling hike, if Republicans have their way. They're already clamoring for more and deeper spending cuts, giving notice that the debt ceiling is ripe once again for hostage-taking.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (21+ / 0-)

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:30:56 AM PDT

  •  Crisis? What crisis? (5+ / 0-)

    It's just the new normal.

  •  $85 BILLION, not trillion (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Apost8, ferg, RUNDOWN, raincrow, scott5js

    Easy mistake to make.

    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

    by DaddyO on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:47:09 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for catching that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow

      I'd typed out "trillion" a few times already this morning, and it just got stuck in my head.

      "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

      by Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:04:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For a second there... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joan McCarter

        ...it sort of scared the pants off me. I saw a graphic yesterday that said Wall Street trades $5 quadrillion worth of securities every year. Five thousand TRILLION dollars' worth. And pays no taxes on the transactions.

        Time to get the siphon out. One percent of that number should do just fine. And no George W. Bush to cut the deficit plan to shreds in sight.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:17:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Got it confused (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, BusyinCA

      with the derivatives liabilities of Chase Manhattan?

      In a capitalist democracy - every dollar is a "vote" ... spend wisely ...

      by RUNDOWN on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:31:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Heckuva job US government! Bumping along from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, Penny GC, DSPS owl

    disaster to disaster...these people should be ashamed of themselves.

    Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less. E.J. Dionne

    by blueyescryinintherain on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:48:33 AM PDT

  •  Dems caved, Repugs got what they wanted. (16+ / 0-)

    The Republicans are doing to the Dems, exactly what we should have been doing to them.  They let the sequester happen, and now they are going to restore funding to their favorite programs while blaming the Dems for obstructing government funding.

    We had a chance to let the Bush tax cuts expire, then start proposing tax cuts for the middle class and let the Repugs fight against it, but Obama and the Dems caved again, and now the Repugs get more of what they always wanted, cuts in social spending.

    When are these Dems going to quit being cowards and start fighting for something?!

    •  Magic 8-ball Sez... (5+ / 0-)

      Outlook not so good.

      'Guns don't kill people, video games do - paraphrased from Lamar Alexander (Sen-R-TN)'

      by RichM on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:04:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hear, hear, pollwatcher. ;-) N/T (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aeolos, raincrow, BusyinCA

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:42:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  For a party that was repudiated at the polls (5+ / 0-)

      the GOP is doing a pretty good job of getting what it wants.  Dems, on the other hand, look more pathetic by the day.  

      •  It is pathetic, isn't it? (6+ / 0-)

        The Dems have won the popular vote in the presidential election in 5 of the last 6 elections,...and won the EC in four of them.  They also held the Senate for three straight elections (including 60 seats in 2009), and the House in two of the last three elections.  

        And,during that period...when it comes to major policy (economic policy, and social policy which affects economics, which is all that really matters to the Right), the Dems have won only one battle.  ONE!  Obamacare.  And, that was watered down so much that even what passed was a big giveaway to the corporate Right, and it almost felt like a loss.  

        On every other issue, it's either been an abject defeat, or an incrementally less horrible defeat.  Even when the GOP "loses", it ends up a win for them.  Look at the fiscal cliff deal - a tiny tax increase on people who won't even notice the difference in exchange for codifying into permanent law 88% of GWB's tax policy.  They'll take that deal.  Look at Sequester - yes, defense spending gets cut, but not weopons systems, not base closures.  From what I've read, most of the cuts will come from laying off civilian defense employees (i.e. there will be fewer government workers).   Another GOP holy grail.

        They are the smart ones.  The next time I read on this site how "dumb" republicans are, I'm going to ask the poster, "if so, then why do you keep losing to them?".

        To channel Dick Cheney:  "Elections don't matter".

        •  Spot on, rmp690. And I also wonder when I hear (0+ / 0-)

          how "dumb" republicans are--how is is that conservatives managed to 'take over' their Party, while we (liberals) have been pretty much completely 'marginalized.'

          They may be 'crackpots' in some areas, but them seem to know who to gain leverage and/or power within their own party.  ;-)

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:14:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Anybody have a best guess (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, musiccitymollie, BusyinCA

    for when they will try the Social Security and/or Medicare cuts?


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:55:05 AM PDT

  •  Managing the budget... like American families do. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM

    Scraping by month to month and borrowing.

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:57:37 AM PDT

    •  Yes, i remember that (0+ / 0-)

      I remember when I did not buy luxuries when I did not have money.  No movies, no cable, beans instead of meat.  That is how a person manages to live in a budget.

      The spending bill doesn't reverse the $85 billion sequester cuts, but it does shift some spending within departments to try to mitigate some of the worst cuts to things like ..meat inspection...

      So I wonder why the federal government has a budget for meat inspection.  Why is this not paid 100%  by the people who can afford meat and do not have to live on budget.  Why, when I give up luxuries to live on a budget, does my tx money go to those who want to live extravagantly.

      It reminds me of this opinion piece in the Washington Post the other complaining about SNAP paying for junk food.  It is a reasonable question, and every time some complains I ask another question, Why does SNAP pay for anything other than fresh staples or canned or dry foods?  Certainly a family could do better if they were not allowed to buy fresh milk, hot dogs, or frozen dinners?  It amuses me that people thinks oreos are  a luxury, but Lunchables are a reasonable expense.

      The reality is that each family sets it's own priorities.  Some pay for cable, others pay for meat, and some may be responsible and live within their means.  The government is going to have the same diversity.

  •  House R COMMIES (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    we don not NEDd goventmnet it is for SOCXIAList read JOHN  1:6 so WAKE UP america before it is TOO LATE.

    •  Poe's Law In Action (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, RUNDOWN, raincrow

      The Kossacks outside looked from troll to snarker, and from snarker to troll , and from troll to snarkeragain; but already it was impossible to say which was which....

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:00:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anarchists take a break to enjoy Easter holiday... (7+ / 0-)

    The obstructionist Republicans will be back!

    When will the media properly describe Republicans by what
    best describes their political activity ...

    Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy
    which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary,
    or harmful.

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

    by josmndsn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:58:54 AM PDT

    •  Actually... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      josmndsn, raincrow

      This isn't entirely correct when applied to the right wing.

      Anarchism is against a central government because it treats all humans as equal. It doesn't accept authority that is unjustifiable. They replace hierarchical power structures with horizontal equality, with unions and work collectives federating together on local, regional, national, and international levels.

      Capitalism and anarchism thus don't mix, since capitalism couldn't exist without wage slaves working in a hierarchical work model. Capitalism is oligarchical by nature. Some large corporations have bigger economies than small countries, and have an employee population that is immense. When you work for a corporation, you're not working in a horizontally managed environment. You're under command of the firmly established pecking order.

      Most anarchists are socialists or communists, and anti-capitalism is a primary ingredient in true anarchism.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:02:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In other words... (0+ / 0-)

        Capitalism is not "without rulers" as the term an-arch-ism implies. And corporations and their CEOs and the gaggle of suited executives definitely fall into the category of "rulers". Even if the state were abolished completely (which wouldn't work in capitalism despite what some say) the capitalist market would still be archical.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:16:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Appreciate the in-depth analysis, however... (0+ / 0-)

        I believe the "right wing" meets the definition as provided.

        undesirable, - don't want federal gvmt to meddle in their
        pursuit of happiness or free markets.

        unnecessary, - federal regulations are roadblocks to growth
        and self-actualization.

        or harmful. - taxes redistribute their hard-earned wealth
        to the UNDESERVING.

        *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

        by josmndsn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:20:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it does not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raincrow

          That definition is incomplete and thus inaccurate. Anarchy means by definition no leader. It does not mean no organization. See my second comment above.

          http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/...

          The following excerpt is from the Encyclopedia Britannica, written by Kropotkin:

          ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av, and aoxn, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Anarchy means by definition no leader." alone... (0+ / 0-)

            describes the "right wing".

            Unless, a fat, obnoxious, radio commentator, who has never held a political office is considered to be the leader of the Republican party as much of the MSM promotes.

            *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

            by josmndsn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:51:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Many leaders: all of them very very rich (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen

              which is why they're so far ahead of us.

              YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

              by raincrow on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:04:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, no (0+ / 0-)

              You aren't reading what I've provided. Republicans (and all capitalists, for that matter) believe in private ownership of property used production, which creates an owner class with a subservient, subordinated worker class. Which of course, is hierarchy, not anarchy.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:01:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are some wingers (0+ / 0-)

              who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" but that is a misnomer, or oxymoron. Capitalism is by definition hierarchical, so those who refer to their capitalist Ayn Randian politics with this term don't understand anarchism.

              It's similar to libertarians in America not having much to do with true liberty. The original term described libertarian communists, and had nothing to do with capitalism. But the right wing seized that term, as well, as if wage slavery of capitalism provides true freedom for the majority of working people.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

      Anarchists oppose state formations whether they are national or local. The Republicans embrace both, so long as they control them. They're only opposed to government when it is controlled by others.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:19:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can kicked. (0+ / 0-)

    Tune in again in September for the next installment of Budget Blues.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:00:33 AM PDT

  •  If you managed $ like H.R. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevemb, jjohnjj, RUNDOWN, raincrow

    SPOUSE:  Here's the grocery list.

    YOU:  GROCERY list?  Do you even have a CLUE about our DEBT?  We owe $204, 000.00 on the MORTGAGE.  

    SPOUSE: But--

    YOU: TWO. HUNDRED. FOUR. THOUSAND DOLLARS.  And you want to SPEND?  Are you insane? Think of the children.

    SPOUSE: I am.  They need milk and stuff.

    YOU:  Let 'em mow a goddamn lawn.

  •  step in the right direction? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    josmndsn

    i mean, when we dealt with the whole CR thing a couple years ago we had months of having this fight every 2-3 weeks...

  •  Debt ceiling crisis to come (0+ / 0-)

    this is when the blackmail begins. obama should say, GOP you get NOTHING!The president doesn't give in to blackmail.
    Yeah I know he will cave.
    Let the country default and let the blame fall where it may.

  •  Hey GOP... Pitch in, or punch out (0+ / 0-)

    After all, the mess the country is mired in comes directly from the Bush era congress and has been perpetuated by a fantasy movement of media idiocy.
    The budget proposed by Ryan is a continuation of already failed policy and does nothing to correct the harm they've done to the country. In fact, they're covertly blame the same social programs they invariably target for cuts for the injury that they themselves have caused.
    I think the phrase 'Pitch in, or punch out' is a simple understandable demand to make to the GOP. Either find solutions and stop the sabotage or get ready for life under a microscope, one that will disinfect as well as magnify wrinkles.
    Cut the military, and close those tax loopholes. Anything else is distraction. Time to connect the dots and expose the tentacles of the monster that is choking windfall fortunes away from our society thereby creating a permanent lower class. Follow the money on every outrageous claim they make and hang an albatross so putrid around their necks they'll realize how foul and heartless their ideas are.
    Raising taxes on the top earners is necessary for the principles this nation was founded upon; the formation of a 'more perfect union'. The fact is, the more tax breaks the top 1% got, the more they spent on (buying) funding congressional lobbyists and securing state houses. So unless we raise taxes on the wealthy, we are inviting even more parasitic behavior from the GOP and the plutocrats.

  •  Nothing to see here, move along now. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    $10 Billion more for the Pentagon along with flexibility denied the other agencies. Add to that the $10 billion given to Military Construction and Family Housing (MilCon/VA Bill) APART from the Pentagon budget. That's $20 billion over and above the lockdown of sequester to $85 billion in cuts to FY2012 the rest have to live with.

    Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding in the bill is $173.5 billion, $1.4 billion below the request.  However, total O&M funding is $10 billion above the FY2012 level which, according to the House Appropriations Committee, will provide “essential funding for key readiness programs.”  Funding for the Defense Health Program totals $32.7 billion in the bill, about $200 million more than the request. - American Society of Military Comptrollers
    You will not read about any of this in the media. Both parties are colluding to take any pain out of the brinksmanship away from the defense industry. This undermines another leverage point to allow the austerity plans to go forward.

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:04:09 AM PDT

  •  I cannot wait to get rid of these traitorous (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, scott5js

    Republicans come the next general election.  I am so sick and tired of their outrageous and obvious attempts to destroy this country's economy and put millions of Americans out of work, just to make sure their corporate owners and billionaires make more and more and more and more filthy lucre.

    May Republicans all roast in hell.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:07:21 AM PDT

  •  I just flamed Pandora for a GOP ad (0+ / 0-)

    I've finally graduated from flip phone to smart phone, and have been grooving on Pandora's free music stream. I can ignore ads for music, booze, dating websites, etc., with the best of them.

    But I can't ignore Paul fucking Ryan's smirking fuckface.

    Grumpycat has nothing on me today.

    I wish to register my extreme disgust at finding a Republican National Committee "Co-sign the Ryan Budget" advertisement displayed on my mobile Pandora app. I would rather you air ads showing dogs in coitus than the GOP's anti-American-worker filth. Should I be grateful that I haven't yet seen Pandora hawking ads by the Ku Klux Klan, virulent anti-Zionist organizations, or groups advocating the denial of civil liberties to LGBT people?

    (Please do not glibly suggest that I sign up for your monthly service to avoid seeing offensive ads.)

    xxoo

    \  _
    o.0
     @

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:01:14 AM PDT

  •  Unpossible! Obama hasn't submitted a budget yet! (0+ / 0-)

    So the House can't pass one.  That's what the Republicans keep telling me anyway.

    I don't know what's been trickling down, but it hasn't been pleasant---N. Pelosi

    by Russycle on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:50:55 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site