Utah Senator Mike Lee: The Man Behind The Shutdown Curtain

  • Share
  • Read Later
Drew Angerer / Getty Images

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) during an "Exempt America from Obamacare" rally, on Capitol Hill, September 10, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Utah Senator Mike Lee is not preparing for a possible presidential campaign, headlining the Iowa GOP Reagan Dinner this Friday, or landing the cover of national magazines. He is not the face of the Defund Obamacare movement. He is not Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

But Mike Lee is—and Cruz is not—the understated, policy-oriented leader behind the Defund Obamacare movement, according to several conservative leaders who spoke to TIME. He’s also one of the biggest hammers driving the wedge in the national Republican party to establishment and moderate Republicans. And to supporters of the health care law, like Majority Leader Harry Reid, he’s “living in a dreamland.” Given Lee’s influence on Defund Obamacare, and the resulting government shutdown, he is also a person whose national stature may soon rise to match his influence.

The story of the government shutdown began, for all practical purposes, in mid-Summer. “The big pivotal point was July 2,” says Lee’s spokemsan, Brian Phillips, when the Obama administration announced that it would not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014. “It opened up a new door and perhaps a new front in the effort to stop Obamacare,” said Phillips. “We wanted to jump on it.”

The Senate Republican leadership had released statements hammering the President for delaying the employer mandate while leaving the individual mandate in place. But Lee took it one step further. On July 9, he released a statement laying out the strategy the House Republican leadership later adopted: fund everything but Obamacare in the bill that needs to pass by October 1 to keep the government open. He challenged congressional Democrats to shut it down, and then worked behind the scenes at the Republican conference lunches to garner support for defunding Obamacare. At the time, the press was largely focused on the turmoil in Egypt, Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s choice to not seek another term, and filibuster reform. Two days later, Cruz introduced a bill with 29 other Republican senators to fully defund the Affordable Care Act. But it was Lee who orchestrated the outside the beltway response that would bring Washington to its knees.

On July 17, three months before Sens. Mitch McConnell and Reid forged a deal to open the government and avert default, Lee welcomed the conservative leaders of national grassroots organizations into his office after-hours to discuss tying government funding to the Obamacare battles. Sens. Cruz, Mike Enzi, Jeff Flake, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, Jim Risch, Marco Rubio, and Pat Toomey were in attendance, as well as representatives of Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, and other conservative groups. The room was “packed,” said Jenny Beth Martin, President of Tea Party Patriots. Lee spoke first, led the discussion, and asked for support.

“That was the moment that brought everyone together,” said L. Brent Bozell III, the founder of the Media Research Center and a participant in the meeting. Bozell said that every outside group agreed with the strategy, and only one senator openly questioned the shutdown or defund tactic. “Mike Lee is the intellectual powerhouse of this entire movement,” added Bozell.

“It was something we were all eager to participate in out of conviction to the cause and respect for the great leader that Mike is,” said Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham, who also met with Lee in July.

Martin realized that there were some Republicans who might be open to a last-minute compromise. “One reason I felt so compelled to say they had to stay strong and not back down is because Rubio was in the room,” Martin told TIME. “Our coordinators from around the entire country were so frustrated with the way that Rubio acted during the Gang of Eight process. I wanted to make sure all of the senators who were in there knew where we stood, and especially he knew where we stood.” Rubio eventually voted against the Reid-McConnell deal reopening the government.

With the backing of grassroots conservatives, Lee announced on July 25 with 13 Republican senators that they would not support a continuing resolution that would fund further implementation or enforcement of Obamacare. On July 31, Heritage Action proclaimed a nine-city “Defund Obamacare Tour” featuring Needham, Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, and Cruz in Dallas. Despite the Republican leadership’s opposition, Lee and Cruz convinced enough congressmen by the end of September to use the threat of a government shutdown as leverage against already sequester-weary Democrats.

“What we did in those two months made all the difference,” said Phillips. “It was clear that at that point we had gone to our constituents, the American people, to the media, and had made the case over the last two months that this needed to be our stand.”

“I don’t think it would have happened but for that meeting,” added Bozell.

While Cruz stole the national spotlight, the most conservative wing of the GOP continues to sing Sen. Lee’s praises. “Senator Lee has been a tireless advocate for advancing the fight against Obamacare,” said Enzi, a Wyoming Republican. “Like many of us, he recognizes that the president’s health care law is a raw deal for the country and that it must be repealed, defunded, or dismantled piece-by-piece.”

“In my judgment there is no Senator in this body, Republican or Democrat, who is more principled, who is more dedicated, who is more fearless and willing to fight for the principles that make this nation great than is Senator Mike Lee,” said Cruz during his infamous 21-hour speech a few days before the shutdown. “I think over time you’re going to see more Mike Lees and fewer John McCains in the Republican Party,” Matt Kibbe, the President of FreedomWorks, told TIME. “And that’s a huge upgrade.”

But Lee’s judgement has also been called into question. After the 16-day partial government shutdown, at a cost up to $24 billion, Obamacare emerged unscathed. As a result, the strategy Lee orchestrated with Cruz and others has met a fierce backlash. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told TIME last week that she never received an answer from Lee or any Defund Obamacare supporter about how the plan was supposed to accomplish its goal. “The fact that the exchanges opened with the government shut down demonstrates on its face that it was not going to succeed,” said Ayotte.

Even Sen. David Vitter (La.), who says he’s “going to look for every opportunity to stop, or scale back, or delay, or postpone or repeal Obamacare,” told TIME he can’t confidently say how successful the strategy was, or what the next step will be. “I don’t know if we accomplished anything regarding that goal,” said Vitter, referring to actually defunding the health care act.

Other establishment Republicans have grumbled that the idea was misguided from the start. “A number of us were saying back in July that this strategy could not and would not work, and of course it didn’t,” said McConnell on Face the Nation. “There will not be another government shutdown. You can count on that.”

“We didn’t do anything except create a big mess in Washington,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Meet the Press. “I’m not so inclined to think it was the Tea Party as much as it was outside interest groups and a few individuals within our party who took advantage of that situation.”

After the third longest government shutdown in 37 years, the question that remains is what will happen to Lee and the Republican Party. A CNN poll released Monday reports that 54% of Americans believe that Republican control of the House is bad for the country, up 11 points from mid-December. The latest Utah poll shows a 10% drop in Lee’s favorability, but the effects on the national GOP are likelier to be larger than those on Lee.

Utah has a caucus and convention candidate nominating system that favors Lee. “His voter market is only the base of the base,” says Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant who has advised several presidential campaigns. “I think it could be helpful to him, but only in the Tea Party silo of the GOP that he already has some support for. In the wider electorate, it hurts him more than helps him. But since Utah is not a swing state, my guess is he doesn’t care.”

Of course, Lee sees his efforts in a different light. “It’s always worth it to do the right thing,” Lee said on the Senate floor as Reid and McConnell put forward the deal which largely kept the status quo. “Some say we shouldn’t have fought because we couldn’t win, but this country wasn’t built by fighting when victory was absolutely certain.”

43 comments
mrsdavis
mrsdavis

do anyone know what are the illegal laws in the state of maryland?

LB35
LB35

Mike Lee should not be so comfortable in getting releected. Three years is a long time in politics so a lot could happen and this might be forgotten. But right now people in Utah are not happy with him. He got nominated based on low turnout in the neighborhood caucuses 3 years ago. But when Orrin Hatch was up for reelction, the Mormon church leaders sent a letter to all congregations in the state encouraging people to particpate in the caucuses, even telling bishops to cancel youth activities and other evens scheduled that night so adult leaders could go vote. The result was high turnout that favored Hatch over the Tea Party challenger. The same thing could happen in three years, with former governors Mike Leavitt and Jon Huntsman both expected to be interested in challenging Mike Lee. Utah is the most Republican state, but it is an establishment type/moderate brand of GOP. If turnout is high, it is one and done for Mike Lee.

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

"Given Lee’s influence on Defund Obamacare, and the resulting government shutdown, he is also a person whose national stature may soon rise to match his influence."

Oh, I think that ship has sailed. Lee influenced a colossal debacle for his political party and the country, that was obviously doomed to failure from the beginning. If anything, he has far more national "stature" than he has earned. Moron. 

stat·ure  noun \ˈsta-chər\

 : the level of respect that people have for a successful person, organization, etc.

BobJan
BobJan

Mike Lee lives in an alternate universe along with the rest of the Congress. His proposal to fix SS along with the other bungling Congress people probably took all of 5 seconds to come up with. These guys are bought and paid for by the elite of our nation and most of the country thinks that one or part of them (R's & D's) are on their side. It's hysterical to watch my fellow citizens think that their "man" has the answer. They answer to the monied elite and that's it. And besides, he has no real world experience except to be around the elite. 

After graduating from Timpview High School (Provo, Utah) in 1989, Lee attended Brigham Young University as an undergraduate student, receiving a B.S. in Political Science in 1994. He served as the President of BYUSA, a prominent student service organization,[citation needed] and as Student Body President, during the 1993–1994 school year,[3] serving together with his father, Rex E. Lee, who was president of BYU at the time. Mike Lee graduated from BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School in 1997

 In April 2011, Lee joined with Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and fellow Senate Tea Party Caucus member Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) to propose a plan they claimed would extend the financial viability of the U.S. Social Security retirement payment system.[12] The three senators' reform proposal (called the Social Security Solvency and Sustainability Act) was notable because it did not propose any tax increases to ensure solvency.[13] Instead, it suggested that the $5.4 trillion difference between what was then funded and what had been promised could be eliminated by increasing the retirement age to 70 by the year 2032, and slightly reducing the benefits paid to upper-income recipients.

jmac
jmac

Rubio this week:   "I was never in favor of shutting down the government on in defunding the government."

Yet he has his 'no' vote on reopening the government to back up that he's supporting the Tea's.   They have gotten away with this double speak for too long.   Mike Lee is giving Rubio the credit for the shutdown by his presence in the meeting.    

Maybe Rubio should be the headline.  It's not Cruz or Lee responsible for this mess - it's those hedging their bets because they want to put run for President.  It takes more than Cruz or Lee.   It takes the whole party and the entire party has lost it's way.  


reallife
reallife

“I think over time you’re going to see more Mike Lees and fewer John McCains in the Republican Party,”

And then America's people's ingenuity will be once again unleashed, propelling this nation back to its rightful place as leader and hope of the free world.

Keep going, Mike Lee, keep going... we are all with you. 

ThomasHall
ThomasHall

The GOP baggies Lee and Cruz, et al, represent the worst in America and in Congress motivated by GOP gerrymandered self-interest with no real desire to govern or to compromise to pass legislation. They are political anarchists and terrorists that want to destroy not build, dismantle not create. They hate the government if it does not benefit them personally or politically and had no trouble with the fed shutdown, the costs to the country, just as they had no troubled conscience over their 2011 debt ceiling debacle that dropped the DOW 2,500 points costing Americans trillions and the US $18 billion in additional debt interest because of their dysfunction lowered the US credit rating. These self-serving gerrymandered jerks with the least experience, knowledge, and qualifications always put partisan politics ahead of the people and the country--nothing patriotic about that.

HenryMajor
HenryMajor

This is what you get when you don't hold a real primary election; a loose cannon with no understanding of political reality. 

bojimbo26
bojimbo26

All Repubs want to wreck America .

Sparrow55
Sparrow55

1000 words:  Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein.....

Palerider1957
Palerider1957

The ONLY people responsible for the government "shutdown (which only affected 17% of the government) is O'BLOWHOLE and Harry Reid. They are also the ONLY ONES responsible for the Monuments and Parks being closed (well, except for the National Mall which was opened to illegal aliens ONLY for their "protests).
over 75% of the American people are AGAINST ObamanationCare, but "it's the Republicans" right!?
Hey Time, you are worthless as a News REPORTING company, and are only a PROPAGANDA pushing Socialist lying machine. LOL!

MrObvious
MrObvious

This is what people get when they insist on politicians as misinformed and stupid as they are.

This is not the best and brightest; this is the dumbest money can buy.

drudown
drudown

And what role, pray tell, does Grover "no new taxes" Norquist have as well?

Any cursory review of civil liability tends to show it is predicated on two “smoking guns” laying at the feet of the Speaker and his Lobbyist regime: in every instance of official malfeasance by a fiduciary, it can be predicated on a single act or conspiracy to act, if there is a duty to the individual, class or organization complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (1928) 248 N.Y. 339, citing West Virginia Central & P.R. Co. v. State 96 Md. 652. It is no coincidence that the Treason complained of springs from the inextricable correlation of duty and foreseeability of harm. Id. The illimitable extent to which the “shut down” has harmed the State is dispositive on the issue of liability of the Speaker and, indeed, Congress itself. Pity the “paid-for” Media seems to believe the “poll numbers” or “market reaction” are somehow probative to whether laws have been violated by the pre-meditated conspiracy to “shut down” the government by the Speaker, Grover Norquist and Foreign Money donors.

Either RAISE REVENUE as the LAW requires when promulgating a Budget…or don’t serve in Congress.

Spare us your lobbyist-induced, partisan blindness.

Either the express language of Article I, Section 8 requires same, or it does not. It is axiomatic under our laws that this breach of duty by the Speaker authorizes an immediate injunctive relief, if not merely to avoid the Speaker creating liability for the State on account of the self-evident duty owed to Treasury holders, businesses, pension funds, Wall Street firms, etc., for causes of action based on vicarious liability. See, Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc. (1939) 12 Cal.2d 501, 519 (“if the duty to disclose exists, the People merely need to establish that the elected official or acting Fiduciary, with or without fraudulent intent, gains an advantage over another by misleading another to his prejudice”). This is the law and to disregard it here would render the Equal Protection Clause a mere form of words.

Or, to paraphrase a (now ret.) CA Court of Appeal judge that rejected a different corporate defendant’s claim of “privilege” to shield the extent of fraudulent concealment in his published opinion, neither the crime/fraud exception in the CA or Federal Rules of Evidence, nor the rule of law itself, “is so limited.”

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions as applied to any official proceedings [Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181]; in order to maintain the integrity of the government, judicial estoppel precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position in disputes involving the same set of operative facts. Id.; Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 917, 943. Here, the Speaker (and GOP Congress) expressly asserts that Article I, Section 8's express language mandating Congress raise revenue for the People's "general WELFARE" is somehow "discretionary", despite the fact that the evidentiary record proves the same Speaker, Senate and Congress (or collectively: “Speaker”) have all repeatedly admitted, acknowledged and, indeed, required that the Congress pause and take formal notice of the absolute importance of a “strict construction” of the Social Contract in dispassionately discharging a wide range of government duties under the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, e.g., Judicial Confirmation hearings, et al. 

Nor can the Speaker cite to any “Rational Basis” that furthers a Legitimate State Interest in failing to perform the aforementioned requirements of his office, or the Congress doing theirs- not just the legal obligation to promulgate a Budget on an annual basis, but also the affirmative duty to engage in a robust debate over the cost/benefit of the State Action. To be sure, the undisputed fact that the Speaker and his brethren see the Filibuster device and other procedural rules as a means to affirmatively thwart the function of government is likewise probative evidence of Foreign Money corrupting the integrity of the political process and this “fast and loose” official conduct likewise implicates Judicial Estoppel. See, Id. (“judicial estoppel prevents agents or elected officials from obtaining an unfair advantage or take incompatible positions, particularly when doing so would result in a manifest injustice”). Can the self-evident Damage of the pre-meditated “shut down”- much less “default”- be a graver set of injustices to the People, Treasury holders, small businesses and proper stream of Commerce by capriciously disregarding official duties? This is nothing short of unlawful State Action on its face and the fact any “default” is void ab initio does not, by any means, “undo” or “ameliorate” the Speaker and Congress’ malfeasance described herein and elsewhere in greater detail. 

In other words, if a few members of Congress could unilaterally exact “concessions” via such blatantly unlawful Legislative Veto power, the rule of the law becomes a mere form of words. The 2nd Amendment protections are suddenly in dispute on account of the Speaker’s subversion of his prior statements requiring a “strict construction.”

Tell me, why shouldn’t all complicit parties be made to testify to simply re-establish that it is UNLAWFUL for one branch of the three to (1) refuse to do express duties under the Constitution and (2) take the present GOP position of  "gee, let's wait and see what happens" if the State "shuts down" [read: as INJURY is presently unfolding]; much less (3) after the GOP Congress deliberately and pre-meditatively placed procedural hurdles (i.e., more evidence of Scienter and conspiracy to subvert Constitution and Due Process to the People) to prevent the very cure for the "shut down" which, in reality, was done to purport to give the Speaker some imaginary sword that Foreign Rulers can cut and cut away against the rule of law that precludes such actionable conduct. 

I hereby challenge ANY member of the bar, in ANY of the Several States, to cite the Supreme Court case that purports to justify the Congress from REFUSING to RAISE TAXES to avoid a "shut down" when less onerous means are available to pass a Budget- particularly here, when the foreseeability of harm to the People is manifest and manifestly avoidable. 

Particularly here, as there is no Compelling State Interest in the House' ongoing delay promulgating a Budget for the President to sign as soon as practicable.

"What is well done is done soon enough." - Seigneur Du Bartas

outsider
outsider

Any politician who thinks it's admirable to close the gov't because they don't like a legally passed law should be kicked out of office for not doing his job. 


Period. 

jsfox
jsfox

@reallife I would really like to know on what you base this prediction. How will more right wing fanatics unleash American ingenuity? The right is the main reason the middle class has slowly been disappearing. These guys plan to decimate government investment which has launched some of America's greatest achievements. 

Personally more Mike Lees means that the US slides into irrelevance. The dollar will be replaced as the world's reserved currency. 

BobJan
BobJan

@reallife  For America to be the leader and hope of the free world it takes manpower and money. To keep on giving tax cuts to the part of the nation that has the most is crazy. You don't go and start 2 wars which will cost in the TRILLIONS and give 2 tax cuts. I realize Bush was told by his "experts" that more revenue would come in but all of us out here in the real world knows that when you want to spend more you have to make more revenue.  And by the way, Iraq is worse off without Sadaam and the Middle East is also a powder keg without him too. A lot that accomplished. I've come to the understanding that power, egos, profit and the like motivates politicians to do what they do. They don't ever think of the voters. If they did, all public employees would be on a single payer health care plan. We're the government, not the politicians. They spend "our" money and they do it recklessly. Why should a public servant including Congress have better health care than others? Is it because without them we couldn't run efficiently? That myth has been de-bunked years ago. With them in charge and the lobbyists controlling their every move the outcome will always be the same. Voters get screwed and the wealthy get rewarded. Mike Lee had no plan. He played to peoples basics of a government that fails. And who does Mike Lee belong to? THE GOVERNMENT. He's the problem.

BobJan
BobJan

@Palerider1957 Hurry up and sign up for Obamacare and get the psychiatric help you need.

BobJan
BobJan

@MrObvious  But the lobbyists are happy with the Congress. Once the votes are counted, the voters don't count.

Palerider1957
Palerider1957

I notice that you say NOTHING about Harry Reid, who has REFUSED to even read budgets sent to him by the House of Representatives. They are all DOA.
Demon-rats took both the House and Senate in 2007. And America hasn't seen a budget since.
Republicans took the House in 2010 and have submitted budget after budget only to have them thrown in the trash without them even being read in the Senate.
And you dolts wish to blame the Republicans!??
Wow, unbelievable stupidity. And wilful blindness. You use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

Palerider1957
Palerider1957

I notice that you say NOTHING about Harry Reid, who has REFUSED to even read budgets sent to him by the House of Representatives. They are all DOA.
Demon-rats took both the House and Senate in 2007. And America hasn't seen a budget since.
Republicans took the House in 2010 and have submitted budget after budget only to have them thrown in the trash without them even being read in the Senate.
And you dolts wish to blame the Republicans!??
Wow, unbelievable stupidity. And wilful blindness. You use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing. @drudown

drudown
drudown

"Not merely the idols fell, but also the habit of faith in their agendas." - Henry Adams

From whence comes the unseasonable notion that elected representatives are serving in some sort of partisan fashion, i.e. as opposed to serving the People that PAY their salaries? From whence comes this unseasonable notion that “if the republicans don’t fight on the Health Care issue with everything they’ve got, what good are they?” Well, Hannity, I guess that depends on if you actually think our elected leaders of EITHER partisan affiliation have self-perceived “discretion” to avoid FAITHFULLY EXECUTING the Constitution (aka the Supreme Law of the Land). Contrary to your contrived Buzzfeed “spat” with O’Reilly, you both want to obfuscate the self-evident breach of duty that such a “shut down” irreparably caused the State.

Excuses for malfeasance are a breath too late.

"There is always time to add a word, never time to withdraw one." - Gracian

In this regard, how can ANYONE credibly cite some unlawful “pledge” to a Lobbyist as a material hindrance on recouping the LOSSES that proximately resulted from the “shut down” itself? It can’t be both. You cannot concurrently deny that Lobbyists have not materially interfered with express Constitutional duties resulting in the “shut down” (e.g., fiscal shortfall that results from trying to “drown government in the bathtub”) and simultaneously refuse to honor Article I, Section 8’s revenue raising-function to “cure” via "Taxation" the undisputed BILLIONS that resulted from the “shut down” (aka breach of duty).

In this regard, the real Republican “revolt” is actually against the rule of law. How was the “shut down” not a deprivation of Procedural Due Process if it is undisputed under our laws that the Due Process Clause was intended to secure an individual from an abuse of power by government officials? See Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327.

For this “shut down” was not a "reasonable disagreement over abstract legal policy, etc."

This is turning Stare Decisis on its head and pretending our ability to police our own elected officials from the pull of Foreign money donors is somehow limited or dead.

"Thy love afar is spite at home." - Emerson

Just this: there is NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in “refusing” to simply raise taxes when the result is a manifest injury to the State, the People and US Treasury’s ability to meet its obligations for no reason at all.

Moreover, the People have a Substantive Due Process right to a STRONG and SOLVENT Military/Police/EMT/CIA/FBI that provides for the “Common Defense” per Article I, Section 8’s express language. No amount of “partisan posturing” ameliorates this legal obligation of the express language contained in the Constitution.

Stated differently, under what possible Contract Law precept would the Speaker (or ANY member of the GOP Congress) purport to use Legislative Veto power to “defund” the ACA or, worse still, force the State to “shut down” – when the express language of Article I, Section 8’s plain meaning governs any subsequent interpretation? [see, TRB Investments, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 19, 27; see also Cal. Civ. Code Section 1636; "A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting"]. Despite its “paid for” articles in the Fairness Act-less Media, the GOP simply wants to pay lip service to a “strict construction” on the Constitution as its Admissions and unlawful conspiracies to “defund” the State clearly show the voters actual malice towards the rule of law.

Finally, whether or not certain terms of art in the Constitution require more detailed “construction” is, by virtue of precedent, solely the purview of the Independent Judiciary (see, e.g., Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137). Here, however, the undisputed evidence in the record shows that the GOP Congress has simply cited its own self-perceived right to engage in Anticipatory Repudiation at the expense of the Common Defense and People’s general welfare, i.e., both clearly enumerated Due Process rights of the People under Article I, Section 8.

For it is the rule of law that binds the People, the State and those that serve us- to ensure the proper performance of the Social Contract from which the Police Power reserved to the Several States springs- like the sinew that contains us, and figuratively to all living things.

Let the rule of law- not some alleged, ever-changing will of one party’s base- guide us as precedent has done thus far, dispassionately.

If not, “what good” are laws then, Hannity?

“The ambassadors of peace shall weep bitterly.” – Bible, Isaiah 33:7

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

@outsider "Any politician who thinks it's admirable to close the gov't because they don't like a legally passed law should be kicked out of office for not doing his job."

So should any "journalist" who thinks that politician's failure should be a featured as an accomplishment.

jmac
jmac

@BobJan @jmac They're trapped in Bizarro land.   They need the nuts to win and the nuts know it and are running the show.

If McConnell loses his primary the way the very conservative Senator in Utah lost to Mike Lee . . .  

DavidM.Baker
DavidM.Baker

@Palerider1957 my information says that the senate sent eleven budgets in the last six months to the house, and the REPUBLICANS were the ones that would not look at then

tommyudo
tommyudo

@Palerider1957


You start a conversation you can't even finish it. 
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything. 
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. 
Say something once, why say it again? 

"Psycho Killer" - The Talking Heads

I bet they didn't know about you when that song was written.

drudown
drudown

@Palerider1957 @drudown

I repeat:

Your feeble attempts to categorically divert a discussion from the self-evident, unlawful Unconstitutional means of Legislative Veto power by proffering "polemic pointers" does not undo the rule of law that works and is. See, e.g., INS v Chadha (1982) 462 U.S. 919. 

As for the "budgets" proffered by Paul Ryan, they don't pencil. What, does the seller of a $12mm home likewise breach some duty by refusing to entertain a $500k "offer"? Do tell.

So how's this:

The GOP-controlled House is VIOLATING the LAW by failing to produce a commercially reasonable Budget for the President to sign into law.  Or are you going to try to coerce more "concessions" via unlawful Legislative Veto power before following the law? I fancy.
Just this: if this purportedly "magical" Debt Ceiling Act is some "kryptonite" that (oh no!) just, well, prevents the GOP Congress from doing its job in the first instance...what rational voter would let them lawfully retain a Legislative Veto power henceforth, i.e., It is UNLAWFUL in the first instance. See, e.g., INS v. Chadha, supra, 462 U.S. at 944-951, ("The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1 -- requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives -- and § 7 -- requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the President, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House -- represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers").
In other words, here the Congress is trying to get "two bites at the apple" and, as such, it is patently Unconstitutional per, inter alia, INS v. Chadha. Id.


Just this: you still fail to address the threshold inquiry: how is the GOP Congress’ failure to RAISE TAXES to meet the fiscal shortfall purportedly “causing” the “shut down” not unlawful when the express language of Article I, Section 8 clearly requires Congress raise REVENUE for the Common Defense and General Welfare?

Why is that?

"All bad precedents began as justifiable measures." - Julius Caesar

Palerider1957
Palerider1957

@drudown I notice that you say NOTHING about Harry Reid, who has REFUSED to even read budgets sent to him by the House of Representatives. They are all DOA.
Demon-rats took both the House and Senate in 2007. And America hasn't seen a budget since.
Republicans took the House in 2010 and have submitted budget after budget only to have them thrown in the trash without them even being read in the Senate.
And you dolts wish to blame the Republicans!??
Wow, unbelievable stupidity. And wilful blindness. You use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

jsfox
jsfox

@reallife @jsfox it appears Senator Lee is in a bit of trouble back home. From the Wall Street Journal; "“Lee looks vulnerable to a challenge from within his party, but the real danger could be a challenge in a general election from the right kind of moderate Democrat,” Monson told the Journal.

Monson's online poll earlier this month showed Lee's favorability tumbling to 40 percent, while 51 percent of Utahns said they have an unfavorable opinion of him. That's consistent with a recent trend for the entire Republican Party, which has seen historically bad polling numbers in the wake of the budget and debt crises.

http://stream.wsj.com/story/the-fiscal-cliff/SS-2-87944/SS-2-361721/


And from WaPo: "To hear grievances with Lee’s no-compromise, no-apology governing style, just head to the executive floor of Zions Bank, founded by Mormon settler Brigham Young. Bank President A. Scott Anderson, who raised money for Lee three years ago, sat in his corner office this week harboring second thoughts.

“I think people admire him for sticking to his guns and principles, but I think there are growing frustrations,” Anderson said. “If things are to happen, you can’t just stick to your principles. You have to make things work. . . . You’ve got to be practical.”

Spencer Zwick, a Utah native and national finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, was more direct, calling Lee a “show horse” who “just wants to be a spectacle.”

“Business leaders that I talk to, many of whom supported him, would never support his reelection and in fact will work against him, myself included,” Zwick said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-utah-tea-party-favorite-sen-lee-faces-gop-backlash-over-government-shutdown/2013/10/22/9754e782-3b25-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html

BobJan
BobJan

@reallife @jsfox  they're on obamaphones because Obama has been unable to find people full time work with benefits because the previous "Administrations, R's & D's included made the tax code beneficial to corporations to send work overseas. So, no right wing fanatics or no left wing liberals are going to be able to put America back together again until we get rid of the lobbyists that controls the Congress. Someone controls Mike Lee just as someone controls Harry Reid. Get that through your head and you'll sleep better tonight. The Congress is bought and paid for by the wealthy. After the votes are counted, the voters don't count. They have no plan other than to shout that the other side is wrong.

jsfox
jsfox

@reallife @jsfox Ignored the question, no surprise. So please tell me what you base your prediction on. What facts?

 But on to another point you brought up. The ObamaPhone. You do realize there is no such thing at least no such a thing that was started by Obama. Subsidized cell phones and service was done by Bush in '08 building off a program for subsidized phone service  for the poor started by Reagan.

BobJan
BobJan

@jsfox @reallife @BobJan  I have heard but have been unable to find that the wars under Bush were not part of the national debt but under Obama they've been added. TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS and people look at Obama as the culprit.

jsfox
jsfox

@reallife @BobJan And we are still suffering the consequences. Unpaid for tax cuts, two wars unpaid for and off the books and the largest unfunded entitlement increase in our history plus a deep deep recession started on his watch have more to do with today's debt than anything Obama has done.

BobJan
BobJan

@reallife @BobJan  hey, got news for you too. Taking money and spending it on war is never a good thing for a country. Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years and it broke their back. You think because we're America it'll somehow be different? Bush has been gone for 5 years and his legacy will live on "forever" as the man who started 2 wars, handed out 2 tax cuts, gave taxpayers money to "Big Pharma", part D with no price controls, TSA and Homeland Security. Oh, and when he left office we were vomiting 800,000 jobs a month. I voted for GW twice but I'm sure glad I don't have to live down his legacy. No presidential library could make up that debacle. And he didn't have a Congress that blocked everything he wanted to do. 6 years of Republican rule and look where it got us. Maybe it would have been better if we had a Congress back then with backbone. And the Congress today is just as lame. Both R's & D's.

drudown
drudown

@Palerider1957 @drudown

Your feeble attempts to categorically divert a discussion from the self-evident, unlawful Unconstitutional means of Legislative Veto power by proffering "polemic pointers" does not undo the rule of law that works and is. See, e.g., INS v Chadha (1982) 462 U.S. 919. 

As for the "budgets" proffered by Paul Ryan, they don't pencil. What, does the seller of a $12mm home likewise breach some duty by refusing to entertain a $500k "offer"? Do tell.

So how's this:

The GOP-controlled House is VIOLATING the LAW by failing to produce a commercially reasonable Budget for the President to sign into law.  Or are you going to try to coerce more "concessions" via unlawful Legislative Veto power before following the law? I fancy.
Just this: if this purportedly "magical" Debt Ceiling Act is some "kryptonite" that (oh no!) just, well, prevents the GOP Congress from doing its job in the first instance...what rational voter would let them lawfully retain a Legislative Veto power henceforth, i.e., It is UNLAWFUL in the first instance. See, e.g., INS v. Chadha, supra, 462 U.S. at 944-951, ("The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1 -- requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives -- and § 7 -- requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the President, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House -- represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers").
In other words, here the Congress is trying to get "two bites at the apple" and, as such, it is patently Unconstitutional per, inter alia, INS v. Chadha. Id.


Just this: you still fail to address the threshold inquiry: how is the GOP Congress’ failure to RAISE TAXES to meet the fiscal shortfall purportedly “causing” the “shut down” not unlawful when the express language of Article I, Section 8 clearly requires Congress raise REVENUE for the Common Defense and General Welfare?

Why is that?

"All bad precedents began as justifiable measures." - Julius Caesar

jsfox
jsfox

@Palerider1957 @drudown Psst you seem to have forgotten or never knew that the Republicans have refused 18 time to go into conference on a budget.