This post has been updated.
Florida’s 9th district representative Alan Grayson, in between bouts of ingesting paint chips and overtly slandering political opponents, has on occasion attached his sponsorship to House bills. His latest contribution to “providing for the general welfare” (emphasis likely on welfare) is a bill to put eternally to rest the threat of a government shutdown.
From the Washington Post:
Tired of fretting about government shutdowns? Budget lapses would be a thing of the past under a new proposal from a House Democrat who wants to put an end to them for good.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said this week that he is seeking co-sponsors for a “Shut Down the Shutdowns Act” that would automatically extend existing appropriations levels for another fiscal year whenever Congress fails to fund agencies before their money expires.
“It changes the default from shutdown to the same budget,” Grayson said during an interview with The Post on Tuesday. “I don’t think the founders ever intended us to face one shutdown after another.”
Someone start the slow clap. (sigh)
This is another sample from page one of the progressive playbook. Offer the people a disastrous time-bomb with a colorful candy coat. Every person with even a single heartstring might be tempted to buy into this proposed bill. But even a cursory scrutinization of the concept can see through the diaphanous veneer of the contempt a representative would have to have for their Constitutional mandate to even consider it.
When it comes to the budget, all that matters is balancing it. Stop racking up debt. Stop devaluing the currency. But too many politicians have for too long made too many promises on the People’s dime. Therefore, you almost never hear a serious balancing proposal and when you do it has virtually no chance of gaining traction because no one wants their slice to be the one that gets cut. Too many promises, too many times and it cannot keep going.
Fun fact. If you have ever voted for anyone for a federal level office on any basis other than their commitment to custody of the Constitution, congratulations, you have accepted a bribe from a sleazy politician. You accepted a gift in exchange for your vote. You engaged in dirty backroom dealmaking and you weren’t even a millionaire lobbyist.
This is what makes holding the budget hostage a potential weapon. No one wants their sacred cow to be the one that gets sacrificed. But it’s a double-edged sword. Especially when the media can be brought to bear on you.
Congress is Constitutionally required to make a budget, something they’ve failed at pretty spectacularly in recent years. But gerrymandering notwithstanding, the House is the most accurate snapshot reflection of the nation at a federal level, if for no other reason than sample size. Whatever the reasons we elect our representatives, compromise isn’t one of them. Yet we constantly hear the cry for compromise no matter the majority held in Congress. Incidentally, compromise is a term whose definition the left has confused with capitulation.
As for this latest crisis, why exactly is funding for the president’s permanent vote majority plan directly tied to funding for Homeland Security? Because of course it is. The agency shouldn’t even exist anyway. Homeland is a very nice sounding word that owes its roots to nationalism and actually has no place in the philosophy of liberty and independence. But threaten to shut it down you create an outcry in the formerly independent American populace. All to force through the president’s unconstitutional program that would just so happen to catastrophically undermine what the agency’s supposed purpose is in the first place.
Clone a thousand John Grishams and a thousand Tom Clancys and they could not collectively write you a more convoluted tale of intrigue.
We are all well aware by this point neither party is in any way serious about ever getting our runaway debt under control. All these shutdown showdowns are are phony arguments over how to spend pretend money we don’t have. We’re quibbling over which maxed out credit card to charge our next excess on.
What this proposed bill by Grayson really signifies is the abandonment of all pretense.
Update: The point has been made that Congressman Grayson may actually be a mad genius and that if this bill became law then all people would have to do is insist Congress do not fulfill their Constitutional mandate. Something they’ve proven quite adept at. Under a status quo stalemate, the budget would balance itself out in a decade or so.
If this was the Congressman’s intention, then all impugning of his character is hereby retracted.