Sidewinding self-governance

The right is fittingly giddy over a Wall Street Journal report:

Senior aides to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have begun discussing a bill being prepared by House Republicans to fund government operations through September. Republicans want the bill to extend operating funds at the lower levels set to kick in Friday and to give more flexibility to the Pentagon to manage its cuts.

Such re-legislated defense-spending "management" will likely assume the form of "evasion," while domestic spending is held accountable for its deficit sins. This was expected by many. Perhaps less expected by some is this pusillanimous reaction to yet more Republican extortion, threatened at an abruptly turned table: 

[A]n aide to Senate Democratic leaders said such a measure might be politically difficult for [Democratic] lawmakers to oppose, lest they bear the blame for shutting down the government.

Now I ask you. Do you think Republicans would be pre-palsied about the political consequences of playing hardball? And do you think they'd be leaking to the WSJ--at the beginning of negotiations for Christ's sake--that they're prepared to cave?

It appears the next two years will bear the same relationship to last year's election results that a firecracker bears to a rocket launch. Representative democratic self-governance my ass.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

I think the plan has always been to let the public see and feel the full effects of the cuts and respond accordingly.

I have no idea how we will respond.

[KBurnsq]

It is representative self governance. . . by the corporations and the wealthy. They decide and we obey.

[Peter G]

Doesn't change much though. Still have divided government so whatever passes the House still has to get by the Senate. And the president still has his veto.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Here is an open question to all.

All this fuss is about the "budget". In the federal government, the second step is "appropriations". Third the money is spent.

Often in government "budgeting" - state or federal, an agency will "cut staff" by say 10%. Upon further discussion, one learns that the budgeted billets were reduced 10% and not the actual staff.

Let's say, an agency is budgeted to have 100,000 employeee (billets), but in actuality, there are only 92,0000 employees on staff. A budget cut would reduce the budgeted number to 90,0000. In order to get to the budgeted 90,000, only 2,000 employees, not 10,000.

Is that what is really going on here?