Toward Federal Government Paralysis?
Published in La Presse
(Canada) on 19 February 2011
by Richard Hétu (link to original)
(Canada) on 19 February 2011
by Richard Hétu (link to original)
Translated from
by Mandi Kimberly.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
By a vote of 235 votes against 189, the House of Representatives voted at 4:30 this morning for a $61 billion reduction in federal spending. These severe cuts, which are part of a federal government funding bill for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, pave the way for a confrontation with Senate Democrats and the White House that could lead to a paralysis of the federal government.
One must understand that the current budget law will expire on March 4. If the Democratic-majority Senate does not agree with the Republican-majority House by then on a common bill, government services could cease to function. Such a scenario occurred twice in 1995 when the chairman of the House at the time, Newt Gingrich, wanted to sell Clinton on drastic cuts. The confrontation ended to the Democratic president’s advantage when he finally convinced people of Gingrich’s intransigence.
Republican leaders say they want to avoid government paralysis, but even if they are sincere they must deal with the 87 new Republican representatives, many of whom were elected in November under the tea party banner. Filled with limitless zeal, they have contributed to the adoption of cuts that, in particular, prevent Barack Obama from funding his health care reform and the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling certain polluting industries. The cuts will eliminate or reduce several government programs, including border security.
Democrats, who accuse Republicans of failing to understand the consequences of their decisions, propose to reduce government spending back to the amounts of the 2010 fiscal year.
One must understand that the current budget law will expire on March 4. If the Democratic-majority Senate does not agree with the Republican-majority House by then on a common bill, government services could cease to function. Such a scenario occurred twice in 1995 when the chairman of the House at the time, Newt Gingrich, wanted to sell Clinton on drastic cuts. The confrontation ended to the Democratic president’s advantage when he finally convinced people of Gingrich’s intransigence.
Republican leaders say they want to avoid government paralysis, but even if they are sincere they must deal with the 87 new Republican representatives, many of whom were elected in November under the tea party banner. Filled with limitless zeal, they have contributed to the adoption of cuts that, in particular, prevent Barack Obama from funding his health care reform and the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling certain polluting industries. The cuts will eliminate or reduce several government programs, including border security.
Democrats, who accuse Republicans of failing to understand the consequences of their decisions, propose to reduce government spending back to the amounts of the 2010 fiscal year.
Next article![]( "The World after Mubarak")
