In response to slomag's comment:
In response to andiejen's comment:
In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to andiejen's comment:
In response to skeeter20's comment:
Tip O'Neill, which andijen would likey identify as one of the great speakers, shut down the government nearly every year that Reagan was President.
Reagan went to O'Neil each and every time to negotiate.
Does that make O'Neill arguably one of the worst speakers of all time? He used the very tool you talk about, in the same way, nearly every year.
The government was not shut down nearly every year Reagan was President.
That aside, Boehner's real failing is his lack of any real leadership as Speaker.
If you are honest with yourself, Tip O'Neil was one of the strongest Speakers the House ever had...the polar opposite of Boehner.
So perhaps, the real reason Boehner has to go for everyone's sake is his incredible weakness as a Speaker.
Ah, yes it was. I count 7 times that the government shutdown under Reagan, mostly as Democrats tried to defund or partially fund things it didn't want the President to do, though one time was just Democrat incompetence. Here's the list:
November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days): President Ronald Reagan vowed to make drastic budget cuts, which the House claimed did not cut defense spending enough and did not raise pay for civil servants either. Reagan vetoed all proposals; the shutdown commenced.
September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day): There was really no reason for the government to shut down. Congress just didn’t complete the budget in time. There may have been one too many cocktail parties that year.
December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days): President Reagan had another shutdown during his administration. House and Senate negotiators wanted to dedicate $5.4 billion and $1.2 billion in public works spending to create jobs. The House also opposed funding A MX missile program, which was a priority of Reagan’s at the time. In the end, the House and Senate caved in on their plans for jobs and Reagan made a few compromises and signed a bill that ended the shutdown.
November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days): House Democrats passed an amendment that added $1 billon to educational spending while cutting foreign aid below Reagan’s favored limit. Democrats in the House ended up reducing funding for education but kept the cuts to foreign aid. The compromise was seen as a win for both parties.
September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days): The Democratic controlled House linked the a series of amendments to stop crime, a water projects package and a civil rights measure to the spending bill. A three day spending extension was passed while the parties negotiated.
October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day): Well, the three day extension clearly didn’t work out and the government was back to square one. The water projects and the civil rights measure were removed from the spending bill. A comprise was reached on the crime proposal.
October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day): The shutdown was a result of several disagreements between Regan and the House including a ban for companies creating subsidiaries, requiring a portion of the goods and labor used in oil rigs to be from America and one that expands Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Democrats in the House compromised a few of their demands and passed a measure that reopened the government.
December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day): The dispute sparked when Reagan and Democrats could not agree on funding for the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants. A deal was worked out where nonlethal aid would be provided to the Contras.
I see lot's of similarities....do you?
Okay. You have documented 1-3 day shutdowns during the Reagan Era. Do you really think that is what we are looking at right now?
Further, the issues at hand do not even come close to the magnitude of Obamacare.
Another difference is Tip O'Neil was Speaker...not Boehner and the House was not divided as it is now.
O'Neil by many accounts hated Reagan, but, first, he knew how to contol his Hoiuse, and second, his personal feelings never stopped him from doing his job and negotiating with Reagan and the Republicans.
Other than the above, I think the situation is just about identical.
The most important distinctions here are
1) Many of these shutdowns were not intentional, and some were the result of a bill passed by Congress but vetoed by Reagan
2) Nobody was ever actually affected, because either the situation was resolved before shutdown measures went into effect, or they passed temporary spending extensions to keep the government moving.
and most importantly
3) They were battles over discretionary spending - not mandatory spending. Right now, a small fraction of a minority party is trying to overturn a vote from two sessions ago and they are doing so by government shutdown. That's never happened before. Ever. That's why the public is so disgusted by Republicans right now - they are proving more than ever they are the take my ball and go home and I don't care what happens to the country or economy party. This is their swan song. Good riddance GOP.
Great post about the major distinctions here.
Further, for those who revere Reagan, Reagan's head of the Office of Chief Counsel, Douglas Kmiec, wrote an article that concludes Reagan would have backed Obama. That the government shutdown is in defiance of the law.
Below is a portion of that article.
The provisions that promote federalist experimentation and state discretion to his liking and he would likely be intrigued by the prospect of separating health access from employment. Reagan would see the virtue and possibilities for wider economic opportunity in not encouraging older people to stay in jobs just to keep insurance. Reagan unquestionably would have argued against the expansion of the public sector, but if his argument lost, he would not defiantly keep making it as if the law had not been enacted.
Most assuredly, Ronald Reagan would concur with President Obama that partisanship cannot be allowed to jeopardize the financial standing of United States nor should the Republican Party see existing law's implementation as anything other than their constitutional duty.
The full implementation of the law is not some favor that can be given the pretense of being offered in a budget negotiation. To make enacted law a pawn in such tawdry dealings is to hold the entire country hostage to one narrow minded conception of what it means to govern in place of what has actually been democratically approved. The far right in Congress is always quick to mention the word impeachment. Seldom is the presidential action so described worthy of their exaggeration; but what the far right is proposing here is indeed high crime or misdemeanor for it is an abandonment of the Constitution's very structure.
Would Ronald Reagan be embarrassed that his party has decided that laws enacted over the Republicans opposed to it will be left without funds, or in some cases, without taking action on the President's nominees to do the work the new law envisions? You bet, but he would also be outraged, for while he often quipped he was glad "we didn't get all the government we paid for," he also held sacred that "'We the people' declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted to it by we the people.
Those ready to push government over the ledge into default unless laws approved by "we the people" are repealed, govern neither by democracy nor respect for the constitutional principles of Ronald Reagan, but by the very arrogance of power the Gipper devoted his life to refuting.