Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns


Shumer's Extremism

Senator Shumer declares:

The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate," said Schumer. "Let me repeat that, so all those who want to stomp on women's health and women's rights can hear us loud and clear. The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.

So Senator Shumer is willing to risk shutting down the government to ensure a few hundred million dollars for Planned Parenthood, and his opponents are extremists?

Exit question: what percentage of Americans think some of our tax dollars should go to Planned Parenthood?

Categories > Politics

Discussions - 9 Comments

Yes. But having said that, perception is reality in politics. And so are numbers. The Republicans are going to have to cave on this. It is better if they cave without a shutdown than with one. Preserve the argument and the ability to make it.

Exit question: what percentage ... our tax dollars should go to Planned Parenthood?

A negative amount,

They should pay taxes like every other profitable organization.


O.K., Good. I'm with you. Now persuade the majority to agree to that. Guessing it won't be done in time to keep soldiers getting their paychecks and guessing THAT is going to be blamed more on those who agree with you than not.

Julie, you do realize that soilders will still get paid even if the legistlative branch shuts down?

Imagine there's no congress, its easy if you try...I can trace DFAS back to the Treasury. I happen to know money is electronic. Look the Department of the Treasury will take over. Congress is only a front, held together by respect for the law, and a slow moving court system. In the interem, who is to say that the president's emergency war powers don't allow him to breach the legal fiction of a debt ceilling. WWHD, (What Would Hamilton Do)?

As for the politics, Ms. Ponzi may be right, and in fact probably is. As for myself, I might acquiesce on this issue; but in that case, even though I am a nobody and in no great position to demand anything from anybody, I have a question I'd like to pose for this man from New York, who obviously has an eye for philosophical musings on right and wrong. To wit:

"Mr, Schumer, we know what you would wish us to imagine would happen in your opponents' America, if they were able to do as they please. In *your* America, sir, what are Americans suppose to do when they have to fund, support, and embrace something they find personally repellent--in fact, a morally criminal act in their minds? What are their duties as citizens? Are they wrong in their beliefs? If not, then is the government wrong in its? If not either, then is there any incoherence in your philosophy? Or is there something I'm missing?

"And on a related issue, sir--are there any times you can think of that the people, acting through their government, might allow something to occur as perfectly legal, but refuse to fund it nevertheless? Anything at all? And assuming those actions are appropriate--which we will assume--why is that appropriate? If the basic concept is appropriate, then how does Planned Parenthood differ from that case? And is that difference consistent with your answer above as far as personal conscience?"

I myself would be very curious as to the answers. Not going to get them, of course--which is a pity, because it is a universal truth that even in obfuscation there can be clarity.

Even asking that question is disrespecting the constitutional role of Congress.

It usurps the foundations of the last uneroded constitutional power, namely that Congress shall control the power of the purse. Why not get rid of congress altogether, and simply have Geitner, the OMB+CBO/Treasury take over? In order to be popular, the IRS could announce that American can allocate tax dollars directly. You want to allocate zero dollars to planned parenthood...go for it. The only thing stopping you is the constitutional role of Congress.

In my opinion you guys have no feel for just how New Dealish you are.

Here's a poll:

Looks like more people favor not eliminating the funding than favor elimating the funding, but not by a wide margin. Hence it's hard to say the position is extreme.

I wonder if the poll said, something like: "The U.S. government has to cut $50 billon dollars, what should be cut," and listed eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood on the list, what the answer would look like? It's not much money, but I wonder if the general public would prefer to save that $300 million for other things.

Yes, if given the choice between the guys on the front lines and paying for Planned Parenthood, who would win, then?

But John Lewis has a point; soldiers have contracts with the US Gov. that will be honored eventually. This is part of the distinction between the two entities. Planned Parenthood goes on without government funding. The Defense Department and those who work for it are not otherwise funded. One is a necessary function of government and one surely is not, even if some people believe it is a good thing.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2011/04/shumers-extremism.php on line 651

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2011/04/shumers-extremism.php on line 651