i will say first that i took your advice on a "deep breath" before coming back to this. i will also disclose that the federal budget is a personal issue for me since the company i work for is funded through a research program which is always under the knife for some reason or another thanks to the GOP hard-liners in the house. so if you tell me i am being reactionary, then probably i am. because it's kind of ridiculous that my own livelihood is determined by whether or not congressman dingbat can morally object to federally-funded research on religious grounds, even though our work has nothing to do with the usual moral arguments put forth by religious types.



symbolic or not, the bill i linked is signed by a who's who of some of the worst the GOP has to offer in regards to public policy. you once said advocating for the de-funding of the federal government amounts to treason, i don't see why this doesn't apply to this situation, whatever the bill's symbolism may stand for.

i also will add that the way the GOP has given its blessing to dividing the EVs of a severely gerrymandered state that obama won in the last 2 elections smacks of treason as well. it sends the message that no matter whether the voters agree with GOP policy, they are going to get GOP "leadership" whether they want it or not. this is no longer a democracy if one party can rig the voting system to always get their way.



it goes beyond fiscal policy and enters into science and medicine as well. i have to keep stressing the fact that i don't ascribe sainthood to the dems, but i do share more of their party platform with my own beliefs than the repubs. it's also a fact that dems don't usually try to defund research on religious or "just because i don't like it" grounds. i will grant that the majority of science denying seems to happen from the right wing punditry and rich GOP donors, but it still finds its way into policy at some point.

on the economic points though, europe has been a very instructive live experiment in governmental austerity during a recession and they are not exactly winning the argument. the EU zone is obviously nothing like the US economy, but the type of austerity they've imposed on their members has enough parallel that we should be learning from their mistakes instead of setting ourselves up to repeat them. preventing the government from functioning until austerity can be implemented is the governmental equivalent of a 5 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted, then breaking whatever it is they fought so hard to get when it is finally given to them. i guess a case could be made that it's not irrational or insane to act that way, but it comes pretty close in my book.



i guess the difference comes in the fact that, as far as i know, you haven't written a bill de-funding the federal government, or cutting minority women out of the Violence Against Women Act for no discernible reason, or only allowing abortion in the case of "legitimate" rape, or a host of other bills that have come up from the right at the national level which seem to fly in the face of rationality. if you actually agree with the rationale behind the introduction of all of those things, then maybe i have the wrong impression of you from our usually civil dialogues with each other. i have an impression of you that you are not only willing to listen to differing viewpoints but that you can accept the reasoning behind them even if you disagree. i like to think i am a decent judge of this kind of thing, but i am willing to concede i may be wrong if this is indeed the case.

on the flip side, i have an impression of GOP pols -- especially at the national level -- unwilling to listen to reason, and unwilling to accept that they have to find the middle ground between their views and the dems positions in order to get something done that benefits the most people as possible. instead they seem to always introduce legislation that benefits the GOP as a party, rather than the people who supposedly elected them in the first place. the only thing i ask of politicians is that they accept differing viewpoints and the rationale behind them whether they agree or not with the actual principle. i see a lot more of that from dems, with the GOP ready to denounce anyone who disagrees as any slur they can get to stick to the person/group/whatever. i guess the real answer is to get rid of the so-called "tea party" contingent, and come back to the middle, but i'm not going to hold my breath on that happening within the next 10-12 years....