Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label government shutdown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government shutdown. Show all posts

Saturday, January 5, 2019

TSA Workers Not Showing Up. The Damage Of Government Employees

Hundreds of TSA officers aren't showing up for work because of the gov't shutdown

'This will definitely affect the flying public'

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Transportation Security Administration officers are calling out from work in higher numbers as the government shutdown continues and forces them to work without pay, according to CNN.
A federal worker pay period ended Friday, meaning workers could begin missing paychecks if the shutdown continues. They were paid last week and would normally get paid again on Jan. 11.
How many? Different airports have seen varying levels of increased absences. TSA employee union president Hydrick Thomas said as many as 170 employees have called out each day this week at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
A Texas TSA official said call outs have increased by 200-300 percent at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. North Carolina TSA union president Mac Johnson said Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham airports have seen 10 percent more call outs, and also said the absences are "creating a vulnerability."
Why are they calling out? Some federal officials told CNN the absences were in protest of delayed paychecks. Others have said some TSA employees can't go to work because they can't afford childcare during the shutdown, or they've had to find temporary non-government jobs to pay the bills.
"The problem of call outs is really going to explode over the next week or two when employees miss their first paycheck," a DFW union official told CNN. "TSA officers are telling the union they will find another way to make money. That means calling out to work other jobs."
What's the impact? TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the absences have not yet caused a significant disruption in TSA's ability to perform security functions.
"Call outs began over the holiday period and have increased, but are causing minimal impact given there are 51,739 employees supporting the screening process," Bilello said in a statement. "Security effectiveness will not be compromised and performance standards will not change."
Bilello said additional absences in coming days and weeks could result in longer lines as some airports may have to close some TSA lanes.
Thomas said he thinks the shutdown and resulting absences will impact travelers.
"This will definitely affect the flying public who we are sworn to protect," Thomas said.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Will Democrats Shutdown Government Over Border Wall Or Will Republicans Cave. Probably The Latter!


Dems Threaten Govt Shutdown To Block Border Wall


(Breitbart) Democrats are threatening to shutter many government agencies on October 1 unless President Donald Trump gives up his popular campaign promise to build the border wall against Mexico, according to Politico.
NY Times Story on Bombshell Climate Report Is Fakest of Fake News 1
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Twitter
In response, Trump’s deputies are offering political compromises to Democrats, including a rise in domestic spending, says Politico:
The White House is pushing a deal on Capitol Hill to head off a government shutdown that would lift strict spending caps long opposed by Democrats in exchange for money for President Donald Trump’s border wall with Mexico, multiple sources said.
Marc Short, the White House’s director of legislative affairs, met with top staffers from both parties on the Senate Appropriations Committee last week to make a hard sell for the proposal, the sources said.
Short — who said the border funding would be used for a “double fence” — stressed that the White House is insisting on a down payment for construction this fall. Short also lobbied for a big budget increase for the Pentagon, another priority for Trump.
If Democrats block the spending plan, many government agencies will have to send their employees home. But national security agencies, and various aid programs, such as the Social Security program, would keep operating.
Trump’s pending request for an October funding package of $1.6 billion would help build roughly 62 miles of border wall. In May, Democrats — aided by a passive GOP leadership — blocked a 2017 funding package that would have helped quickly build 42 miles of wall.
Led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democrats are hoping to block any wall construction, so protecting the northward flow of government-dependent workers to Democratic-run cities, and also breaking Trump’s 2016 primary campaign promise…

Friday, April 28, 2017

Building The Wall Is More Important Than The Wall Itself.


Ann Coulter: Not Building the Wall Is  a Government Shutdown


SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall?

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.
A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown.
Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government.
The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.
This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.
This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.
Take that to the country!
As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending our borders — not Ukraine’s borders.
Building a wall is not only Trump’s constitutional duty, but it’s also massively popular.
Although Trump doesn’t need congressional approval for a wall, it was smart for him to demand a vote. Let the Democrats run for re-election on opposing the wall.
Let Sen. Claire McCaskill explain to the parents of kids killed by illegals that she thought a wall was inhumane.
Let Sen. Angus King say to the people of Maine that instead of a wall that would block heroin from pouring into our country, he thought a better plan was to sponsor a bunch of treatment centers for after your kid is already addicted.
Let Sen. Chuck Schumer tell us why it’s OK for Israel to have a wall, but not us.
Let open borders Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio tell African-Americans that it’s more important to help illegal aliens than to help black American teenagers, currently suffering a crippling unemployment rate.
Republicans are both corrupt and stupid, so it’s hard to tell which one animates their opposition to the wall. But the Democrats are bluffing. They’re trying to get the GOP to fold before they show us their pair of threes.
Now that Trump has capitulated on even asking for funding for a wall, the Democrats are on their knees saying, “Thank you, God! Thank you, God!”
No politician wants to have to explain a vote against the wall. What the Democrats want is for Trump to be stuck explaining why he didn’t build the wall.
Then it will be a bloodbath. Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesn’t build a wall. Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, Democrats will have a 300-seat House majority, and Trump will have to come up with an excuse for why he’s not running for re-election.
The New York Times and MSNBC are not going to say, “We are so impressed with his growth in office, we’re going to drop all that nonsense about Russia and endorse the Republican ticket!”
No, at that point, Trump will be the worst of everything.
No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!
You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.
Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.
Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”
No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them.
It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.
He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Budget Talks Continue But Will There Be An Agreement?

Murray and Ryan Race the Clock for New Budget Deal

The Fiscal Times 
The private and painstaking talks between Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and House Republican Paul Ryan are coming to a head, as the two sides press to craft a new budget plan to meet a Dec. 13 deadline.  If they fail, the federal government will face a second round of automatic spending cuts and yet another possibility of a shutdown early next year.
The two sides long ago abandoned any hopes for a “Grand Bargain” of sweeping entitlement and tax reforms to address the nation’s long term debt and fiscal problems while   authorizing more immediate measures to spur a lagging economic recovery.
Exhausted by a year of relentless partisan sniping over the budget and debt ceiling that culminated in a 16-day government shutdown in October, Senate Democrats and House Republicans are searching for a minimalist plan that protects their most cherished priorities while still being able to pass muster with both parties.
If they can’t cut a deal, the House, Senate and President Obama will find themselves back in crisis mode in early January, with only a week or so to hammer out an emergency measure to prevent another shutdown.
The biggest question hanging over the negotiations is whether Congress will block a second round of automatic spending cuts under the 2011 Budget Control Act or allow the sequester to continue.

The sequester was designed to achieve $1.2 trillion of savings over the coming decade absent congressional intervention. But with so many complaints from the Pentagon and federal agencies about the hardships being caused by the across the board cuts, Congress has been under pressure to do something about it.
The Senate is pressing to replace the sequester with a package of alternative spending cuts, tax loophole closings to raise almost $1 trillion in new revenue over 10 years, and some reforms of Medicare and other entitlement programs. The House, meanwhile, insists on authorizing $91 billion less in domestic spending in the coming year than the Senate favors and it unalterably opposes raising tax revenues for more spending.  
"If we focused on doing some big grand bargain, like those prior efforts ... then I don't think we'll be successful because we'll focus on our differences,” Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman from Wisconsin, told Reuters earlier this fall. “Each party will demand that the other compromises a core principle and then we'll get nothing done." 
Murray, the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman from Washington State, has been consistently more upbeat and optimistic than Ryan since the two began presiding over a bipartisan House-Senate budget conference committee and meeting privately.  
“She is encouraged that the talks continue and hopeful that they continue to make progress to get to a deal,” Eli Zupnick, Murray’s chief spokesman, said this week.
The private talks and a series of tangential public hearings held by the committee   have lacked the drama and suspense of previous negotiations going back to the budget and debt ceiling crisis of 2011, which led to the passage of the Budget Control Act and imposition of  the sequester. With public approval of President Obama and Congress at record lows, neither party can afford another budget crisis or threat of default on the U.S. debt heading into the 2014 mid-term elections.
What’s more, while Democrats are eager to spare the president’s domestic agenda from additional automatic cuts, many Republicans are comfortable with the current budgetary status quo, even if it’s far from their ideal.
The automatic sequestration cuts locked in deficit savings, while the fiscal cliff deal at the start of this year locks in tax rates, so it takes a legislative change to increase revenues. 
Neither party was happy with the $85 billion worth of automatic cuts in domestic and defense program this year, under the sequester.  The next round of cuts will be even larger, in the range of $109 billion, throughout the fiscal year that runs through next Sept. 30.
A growing chorus of Republican defense hawks is particularly concerned that a second round of sequester cuts to the Pentagon budget would hollow out the nation’s armed forces.
 In an Oct. 23 letter to Ryan and Murray, Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee warned, “Continued sequester would lead to the reduction of an additional 100,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen from our Armed Forces, and cancellation of important programs providing key technologies and capabilities.”
Democrats are counting on this mounting GOP concern about defense to force Ryan into a compromise that would give them additional domestic funding and tax revenues. But several Republicans on the budget conference committee -- including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) -- have suggested that another round of automatic cuts in defense is preferable to taking a bad deal.  
“Obviously, [Ryan] would like to change the sequester to protect defense, but I think he has made it pretty clear in the past that if agreement cannot happen, we’re not just going to just walk away from sequester,” said a House GOP staffer.” We fought for those spending cuts back in 2011, we’re proud of them, and we’re not just going to give them up. . . .I think at the end of the day, we’re going to have a sequester if agreement is not reached.”

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Should Republicans Or Democrats Be Charged With Sedition Due To the Government Shutdown?

The one and only.
MoveOn.Org Hosts Imbecile “Seditious Conspiracy” Petition Against House Republicans

Text   

At the website of the anti-American, radical Left outfit, MoveOn.org, 29,000 progressive big thinkers have signed a petition calling on their friends at the Obama Justice Department to prosecute House Republican leaders. The petitioners claim the GOP’s recent strategy, leading to a government shut down and “threaten[ing] the U.S. economy with default,” constitutes “an attempt to extort the United States government into altering or abolishing the Affordable Care Act.” That, they proclaim, “is self-evidently a seditious conspiracy” – the crime they would have Eric Holder charge.
I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did prosecute the best-known seditious conspiracy case in modern American history. So I suppose I should break it to these newfangled patriots that seditious conspiracy is, in essence, about the use or planned use of force against the nation. In fact, Congress first codified the crime during the Civil War to address terrorist acts committed by confederate sympathizers. The Supreme Court explained in the 19th century that the law prohibits forcible aggression, and appellate courts have referred to it as the crime of “waging a war of urban terrorism” against our country.
The statute (Section 2384 of the federal penal code), which is very straightforward and easily accessible online, targets those who conspire
to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or levy war against them, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States[.]…
Although the statute’s title is “seditious conspiracy,” you’ll notice that the word “sedition” does not appear in the text that defines the offense. That owes to the unsavory legacy of the Alien and Sedition Acts – a fact the Left is quick to remind us about when the statute is used against its obviously intended targets, terrorists. When we indicted the Blind Sheikh, for example, progressives openly fretted that prosecuting a global terrorist leader who’d called for mass-murder attacks against Americans could be the first chilling step down a slippery slope toward the suppression of legitimate political debate (you know, what they do in Congress).
To help out the MoveOn folks: terrorists are people like President Obama’s friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, or like the al Qaeda jihadists championed by MoveOn throughout the Bush years. Criminal statutes targeting terrorists are usually not thought applicable to elected congressional officials with constitutional speech-and-debate immunity who peacefully represent their constituents in formulating and debating legislation. But hey, I guess it’s always possible that our imperial president could “waive” the use-of-force parts of the law and that Holder’s heroes – assuming they’re done shipping guns to Mexican drug cartels – can get after those seditious Republicans.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Crisis Football Or How Far Down The Road Can The Can Be Kicked

Obama punts so much that you'd think he is trying out for an NFL team

Silvio Canto, Jr. - American Thinker,  October 22nd, 2013

The bad news from last week's “shutdown show” is that nothing got fixed.
The good news is that people overseas are noticing it, as we read in The Economist:  
“For a long time American politicians have poured scorn on their European peers for failing to deal with the euro crisis.
This week Washington equalled Brussels on one measure of dysfunctionality and surpassed it by another.
The way in which the Democrats and Republicans, having failed to reach any agreement, decided to “kick the can down the road”, was deeply European.
The deal allows the government to stay open till January 15th and the debt ceiling to be raised until February 7th.
Just as America's economy seems to be recovering, with the promise of GDP growing by 2.7% in 2014, it could face another shutdown of the kind that has just sent consumer confidence to a nine-month low and knocked back growth in the fourth quarter by an estimated 0.6 percentage points.”
I agree. We “punted” to next year and set the stage for another show again. President Obama will punt again and push us into another crisis.
Someone should tell President Obama that his hometown Bears already have a punter.

Monday, October 21, 2013

The Ironies Of The Obama Administration--Supporting The Wrong People, Denying Americans Benefits And Always On The Wrong Side Of History

Funding Jihadists while Denying Military Benefits

Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online,  October 12th, 2013

Here is where we’re at: The Republican establishment — the guys who told us that for a trillion dollars and several thousand American casualties, we could build “Islamic democracies” that would be reliable U.S. allies in the War on Terror — say it is Ted Cruz who is “delusional” and the effort to stave off Obamacare that is “unattainable.”
These self-appointed sages are, of course, the same guys who told us the way to “stabilize” and “democratize” Libya was to help jihadists topple and kill the resident dictator — who, at the time, was a U.S. ally, providing intelligence about the jihadists using his eastern badlands as a springboard for the anti-American terror insurgency in Iraq. That’s probably worth remembering this week, during which some of our new “allies” abducted Libya’s president while others car-bombed Sweden’s consulate in Benghazi — site of the still unavenged terrorist massacre of American ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials 13 months ago.
Not to worry, though. So successful do they figure the Libyan escapade was, GOP leaders are backing a reprise in Syria. It is there, we learn from a Human Rights Watch report issued this week, that our new “allies,” the al-Qaeda-rife “rebels,” executed a savage atrocity just two months ago. Sweeping into the coastal village of Latakia, the jihadists slaughtered 190 minority Alawites. As the New York Times details, “at least 67 of the dead appeared to have been shot or stabbed while unarmed or fleeing, including 48 women and 11 children.” More than 200 other civilians were captured and are still being held hostage.
So that’s going well.
And, you’ll be pleased to know, supporting the Syrian “rebels” is a high enough priority that it’s not part of the 17 percent of the federal government affected by the “shutdown.” America’s enemies are still receiving taxpayer-funded weapons, so that they can fight America’s other enemies, the Assad regime, to what Washington hopes will be a resounding victory. Er . . . check that — to what the administration hopes will be . . . a tie. The administration also let slip this week that it is arming our preferred jihadists so they can grind to a stalemate with Russia’s preferred jihadists — after all, we wouldn’t want to upset Iran’s ruling jihadists after they’ve just finally deigned to take, yes, a phone call from our pleading president after blowing him off in New York.
So support for the Syrian jihad remains unaffected by the shutdown, just like the Capitol Hill gym and Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” website. Obama did manage, however, to cut off death benefits for the families of American troops killed fighting for our country. Or at least our conniving Alinsky-in-chiefthought he’d succeeded in cutting off the military death benefits — along with forcible closures of war-hero cemeteries, national monuments, private homes, and the ocean.
It turned out he’d miscalculated.
President I Will Not Negotiate ended up negotiating, and then quietly paying bereaved military families, because he discovered, to his astonishment, that the public would hold him, not Republicans, responsible for this unspeakable breach of faith. He’d thought he had that covered. After all, as the Republican establishment repeatedly tells us, Obama’s media always blame the GOP — thus making it “delusional” for the GOP to stand up and fight about anything.
The president was caught by the strategy devised by the delusional rubes who want to exercise Congress’s prerogative not to fund Obamacare — a purportedly unattainable goal, notwithstanding that the prerogative is rooted in the Constitution, in marked contrast to Obama’s own selective waivers of Obamacare, which are apparently rooted in . . . Obama.
See, in order to demonstrate beyond cavil that they were being reasonable, notwithstanding huge objections to the current unsustainable $3.6 trillion trough of federal spending, conservatives volunteered to fund everything the government does except Obamacare. The administration and its scribes shrieked, of course, but there is nothing illegal or unusual about withholding appropriations for federal programs. The government does it every year.Obama himself does it, not just in refusing to enforce the federal immigration laws (to take just one example) but in refusing to execute aspects of Obamacare that harm preferred corporations, union cronies, and Congress.
As expected, our petulant president refused the deal, directing his minions to forge ahead full-speed on his signature socialization of health care — never mind its unpopularity, unconstitutionality, and unreadiness for implementation. Meantime, he schemed to make the shutdown he was forcing as painful as possible. The mainstream-media division of the White House press operation would then, he figured, dutifully blame Republicans for the inevitable public outcry, and the GOP would instantly unfurl its ever-ready white flag.
But instead of waving the flag, House conservatives decided to wave a series of appropriations bills: bite-size portions of the mega-funding the president had already refused — a page out of the Left’s book, offering heartstring-tugging dollars for Head Start, disadvantaged women and children, cancer patients, emergency responders, national-parks operation, city services for Washington residents, etc. Obama thumbed his nose at these House overtures, banked on the press’s refusal to cover them, and went merrily about the business of scalding Republicans over a government shutdown that he was actually causing.
Except Obama let one bill get by: the House’s Pay Our Military Act (POMA). Why? Because Obama needs to hold Senate Democrats in lockstep “no” mode, but even they would not sign on to refusing to pay our troops in wartime. So the bill was passed — proving that, as the delusional Ted Cruz maintains, Democrats can be moved if unified Republicans make the pressure intense enough.
Obama signed POMA even though it cut sharply against his Maximum Pain strategy, but that was because he had his usual Plan B: ignore federal law. As Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky explained on the Corner, administration lawyers issued tortuous guidance, twisting a statute that directs the payment of death benefits into a prohibition against the payment of death benefits. The idea was to add POMA to the community organizer’s propaganda campaign: to show that the Republicans would betray even our fallen heroes if that’s what it took to deny health care to millions of Americans.
But the president who slept through the Benghazi massacre once again forgot that our military is not just an agitprop. Our soldiers really do put their lives on the line, and lose them — as did the one marine and four soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan last weekend. That made it all too real. When bereaved families were suddenly denied death benefits by our government, there was no hiding the fact that the commander-in-chief had, yet again, abandoned those who’d made the ultimate patriotic sacrifice. What’s more, this dereliction was nothing more than crass political calculation — or, as it turned out, miscalculation.
Public anger erupted and even the Associated Press courtiers were reduced toreporting a sharp drop in the president’s approval rating. Congressional Democrats scrambled and a superfluous, face-saving death-benefits law was enacted so the White House could try to pretend the president now had payment authority he’d previously lacked. Administration lawyers continue to mumble about how, though Obama felt really terrible about it, the perfectly clear POMA had been “too vague” to help military families in their time of need.
You know, there’s also a 1996 law on the federal books that makes it a felony to provide material support to terrorists. It’s not vague. In fact, it’s clear as a bell, according to the many federal courts that have applied it in sentencing scores of jihadist-abettors to hundreds of years in prison.
Don’t you find it strange, don’t you think the public at large would find it strange, that in a shutdown Obama has instigated in order to enforce the Obamacare law Americans don’t want, he so skews the rest of our law that his administration says we can fund al-Qaeda but we can’t fund the families of our war dead?
What a great argument that would be for Republicans . . . if only they were on the right side of it. But they’re not. So let’s roll over on Obamacare, get behind the Syrian jihadists, and make sure everyone knows Ted Cruz is the delusional one around here.