In what is apparently now a normal part of the governing process, a resolution (“CR”) authorizing continued government spending passed Congress yesterday, on the last day of the federal fiscal year.
This CR funds the government through December. Both of Virginia’s Democratic Senators supported the CR, as did all the Democrats in the House. 91 Republican members of the House joined with the Democrats, including two from Virginia: Scott Rigell, from the military-heavy 2nd Congressional District, and Barbara Comstock, from the bureaucrat-heavy 10th Congressional District. The vote counts can be found here.
This CR does nothing to fix any of our fiscal problems. It does nothing to repair the damage done to our military readiness under the sequester. And, it does nothing to defund the lavishly-appointed baby butchers feeding at the federal trough. All it does is delay the inevitable fight to another day. Republican Rep. Rob Wittman, from the military- and contractor-heavy 1st Congressional District, explained issued a statement explaining his ‘no’ vote that sums up the situation nicely:
As I have said consistently, continuing resolutions are a short-sighted and irresponsible way to fund government operations. Washington’s repeated reliance on these stopgap funding measures has prolonged a culture of crisis management, and I could not support this bill.
My district is home to a large military population and many federal employees who are significantly impacted by both the persistent threats of government shutdowns and the lack of certainty created by continuing resolutions. I asked the Speaker to bring Congress back to Washington in August to prevent exactly the type of last-minute decision making that we have seen this week, and I wish he had listened. There is no excuse for letting such important issues wait until the eleventh hour. At the same time, today’s bill simply sets up another showdown in December and does nothing to resolve the devastating cuts to our national defense known as the sequester.
We’re going to have to face the music on this at some point. Those voting for the CR, who gave their votes without gaining anything toward reversing our fiscal deterioration, claim that to do otherwise would be “irresponsible.” I understand that, especially when so much of the economy of a particular Congressman’s district might be bound up in federal spending, and when there was neither a plan to make it work, nor leadership willing to make a plan stick. I don’t condone Comstock’s and Rigell’s votes…I’m just saying I understand the pressures they’re under.
I also understand what it is to surrender preemptively. When Republicans go around saying we shut the government down last time, and that we’re going to refuse to shut it down this time, what that really means is that we’ve surrendered spending authority to an imperial Presidency. If the impetus of a shutdown is on Congress, instead of the guy who wields the veto pen, then essentially we’ve relinquished the Congressional power of the purse granted by the Constitution. That’s what’s irresponsible. So is simply choosing the path of least resistance—letting someone else make the hard decisions down the road—rather than tackling our pressing national security and fiscal challenges head-on.
Every time we do this, we make the ultimate reckoning that much more difficult. At some point, if we keep doing this long enough, it won’t even matter anymore.
46 comments
[…] Congressman’s decision. Rigell has been under fire from conservatives in his district over controversial votes where he and the 19th District’s Barbara Comstock have split with the more conservative wing […]
https://www.facebook.com/AllianceDefendingFreedom/videos/10153713652308417/?fref=nf
Just me being a giver 🙂
Rob voted his conscience and with his constituents who want Congress to do its job. He took a lot of heat on his Facebook page from constituents who were mad about his vote – mainly because if the CR failed they would have missed a day or two of work (that they would get paid for later on). Rob has been very consistent on the issue of Congress adjourning without passing a budget.
A government shutdown would have the same effect as “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” It will not work. The Left owns the media and it owns Hollywood. But, nonetheless, even with all of that heavy artillery at its back, the Left still has enough dedicated activists to get off their collective arse and protest. Because leftwing activists are really committed to their causes, and we on the Right are not. Instead, we repeat the same insanity, by relying on our elected representatives to do the work for us. This is a new sflash, hot off the presses! Most of our elected GOP representatives will not do anything for us when it comes to the culture. So, if you social conservatives wish to change the culture, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT. And for those of you for whom abortion is the number one issue, I wish you would start acting the part. AT A MINIMUM, you should be willing to do the ugly, necessary dirty work to advance the cause. For example, you need to step out of your comfort zone (as Jesus did, as Saint Francis did, as George Washington did, and as Martin Luther King did) and post pictures of aborted fetuses on your facebook pages to show the world the brutally ugly grim reality of abortion. None of you have to be heroes, but a lot of you need to start acting a little more heroic. And sadly, most of you do not and will not.
Dave Brat has served us in the 7th well.
These two will be very interesting to watch if the redistricting falls the way I think it might.
Nah, redistricting won’t matter, I heard local 10th GOP and its Chairman gave up their responsibility and by giving her campaign primary insurance.
In the case of Barbara Comstock, why is it news when a Democrat votes with the Democrats?
In her defense, I give her credit for being smart enough to realize that you have to have a majority of voters to win elections. In her district, I suspect that she is about as far right as she dares be, and still win come Election Day.
I am disgusted by both who clam to be pro life. I guess if it’s not their children it’s not that big a deal. SHAMEFUL!
Ms Woods it is absurd to think they Barbara Comstock only cares about her children. I know Barbara has worked tirelessly for ALL children and their families in her district.
Secondly, National Rght for Life President Carol Tobias did not support a government shutdown either.
Well Ms. Wdawasi it appears she didn’t work that hard on this one! Furthermore, National Right for Life doesn’t have it correct either!
This is the information I was able to obtain from Heritage Action. You should read and comprehend it as well. Barbara Comstock is not demonstrating ANY leadership or courage nor is Scott Rigell.
Defunding Planned Parenthood: GOP leadership is making a final push to pass a so-called “clean” continuing resolution (CR) that continues funding for Planned Parenthood before the September 30th deadline. Sen. McConnell staged a show vote last week on a CR with a defunding Planned Parenthood rider attached. This resolution failed to clear the Senate’s 60-vote procedural threshold, as expected, giving Sen. McConnell pretext to place a “clean” CR on the docket. This move was intended to pressure House Republicans into voting for a clean CR by demonstrating a lack of support in the Senate.
However, the House does not need 60 votes in the Senate support to begin pressing the fight. If House Republicans insist that they will not vote for any resolution that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, the Democrats will eventually change their votes, as the spotlight of a government shutdown makes their support of Planned Parenthood indefensible.
House Republicans are also advocating the use of reconciliation to defund Planned Parenthood, which would allow a standalone bill to pass the Senate at 51 votes instead of 60. In addition to failing to cover all Planned Parenthood (since Title X funding is discretionary), a reconciliation measure would not provide sufficient leverage for President Obama not to ignore it, and would be promptly vetoed. The reconciliation technique is advanced by Republicans who have adopted a strategy of “putting a bill on the President’s desk” rather than actually defunding the organization.
The Senate will be voting tonight on whether to invoke cloture on the clean CR, with the intent to send it to the House of Representatives later this week.
“Show Votes”, are unexceptionable.
An accurate and clear summary of the situation, these legislative show maneuvers appear increasingly staged for media reporting guidance to sway individuals whose sole source of information is MSM regurgitated talking points. As the voting base becomes increasingly aware of the staged effect of these measures they become less and less effective for people like Comstock and Rigell and their supporters to hide behind as a justification for their votes, that often stand out in stark opposition to long held Republican tenets, the pro-life issue being only one example of their platform deviations.
Uh, not ‘all’ children unless you’re counting just the ones that avoid the taxpayer-funded butchers.
Ms.Woods,
Here are the facts. You have to be smart Ms Woods.
Many of our Virginia guys on the ballot THIS year have not weighed in FOR a shutdown because they know it killed Ken Cuccinnelli in 2013 and it would hurt them. In addition, Comstock and others did vote on a stand alone defunding of Planned Parenthood bill.
The bottom line – the shutdown in 2013 killed our ticket. If we had kept the government open and talked about the disastrous rollout of Obamacare all of 2013 instead of infuriating people by shutting down the government, we would have had a RepublicanGovernor. See here how Ken avoided even getting a picture with Ted Cruz in October 2013: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/cuccinelli-shuns-cruz-limelight-097888
My suggestion Ms Woods, instead of trashing your fellow Republicans on blogsites, spend time supporting Republicans and place your anger towards the Democrats. At the end of the day, you will not succeed in taking out Ms Comstock. That you can take to the bank!
Ms. Widawski, you need to be smart. Our ticket failed in 2013 not because of the “shutdown” but our party OGRE turned on the ticket. They allowed turncoats like the Mayor of VB to betray our party and then take his money.
My suggestion Ms. Widawski is that you pay more attention to what is not on the news but the backroom deals. Don’t be a blind robot and pick from the Redskins or Cowboys but try an actually restore our Republic. If you can’t tell the difference between the D’s and the R’s, what’s the difference.
Ms Woods,
I do more than pay attention to what is in the news This is why I am having a difficult time finding documentation of donations made to a PAC you are connected to called the Va Vision Action PAC on the FEC site.
Ms Woods-How much money has the Va Vision PAC raised since it was launched? Where is the documentation of the funds raised and the distribution of those funds?
I am looking forward to your response!
Well Ms. Widawski, I’m doing my best to stop laughing but you’re killn me with this one! If you want to know something about that PAC ask them. I do not make any decisions nor do I sit on their board.
Do try and stay on track with the discussion at hand.
Should Barbara be voting principles and conscience or should she be voting alleged political expediency?
The cowardice of making automatic cuts then not letting them execute can only result in a different representative.
Perhaps the constituency of Barbara that is paid by the very public treasury that she disburses is sufficient to re-elect her… perhaps not.
Outside of 40 some conservatives in the House and a group you can count on two hands in the US Senate we are being governed by a de facto single party ruling system. The Republican majority voted in during the 2014 elections has been completely co-opted by the existing Democratic minority with a willingness and cowardliness that is appalling to view in action day in and day out. This isn’t about losing on a few issues, this is a complete quisling like collapse in the face of documented murder on a mass scale. The Republican Party is very close to a state of political dissolution as it increasingly stands for nothing, takes no actions nor holds any stated legislative positions other then it’s perpetual re-election and serving it’s international corporate financial interests with the associated party cash flow.
Perhaps you believe the Republican Party still exists as a national security party, which believes in a clear-eyed trust but verify approach to dealing with our enemies. This is impossible to maintain after the past few months, where the Senate Republicans completely ceded their Constitutional duty regarding the Iran deal, putting them in the wonderful position (so politically advantageous in the realm of domestic policy) of decrying this deal as awful without being on the hook for anything that happens because of it. This is one god awful mess and meanwhile the innocents will continue to be profitably slaughtered employing cash from your pocket and mine.
Where can I find this “documented murder on a mass scale” documentation? What was the alternative to the Iran deal in your opinion?
Where Is the proof that taxpayer money is being used for abortion?
Hate radio and Faux News are not proof of anything.
This comment reminds me of a T.S. Elliot poem, I generally have no idea what he is talking about either.
Listen to AM radio much do ya?
“This is the way the debate ends
Not with a bang but a wacko.”
I think his point is that a fertilized egg is not the same thing as a baby so it is not murder, all government money to Planned Parenthood goes to non-abortion activities (though that limitation really shouldn’t be in place), and the Republicans didn’t really offer anything better than the Iran deal besides saying vaguely “we should make it better” without giving explanation how. Failing that, the Republicans would just let the cold war with Iran continue, doing nothing until they finally get around to developing a nuke.
Thank you Hibernia86
Steve, it is very disappointing to see someone with your education resort to name calling. Also, you should know that abortion is settled law, end of story. Take it up with the courts if you do not like it, or move somewhere else.
REPOST ALERT – On my admittedly at times seemlingly futile quest to help educate people on what the Supreme Court is and what it isn’t under our constitution I will repost a comment provided to an equally confused gentleman over two months ago here at TBE for your edification and hopefully education on the issue. I apologize to other commenters for the redundancy.
I’m not sure he ( in this case you) has a clear grasp on the Constitution and the role the judicial system, including the Supreme Court plays within it’s structure and the people’s legislative process. Unfortunately not an uncommon circumstance today among many individuals who mistakenly believe the Supreme Court is some form of final arbitrator or voice on decisions regarding federal legislation. Just NOT true the court’s role is to provide “review” and as Roe vs Wade is Federal law Congress can amend, replace, correct deficiencies or outright repeal it at will. This has occurred many, many times to federal legislation in the past history of the Republic. We could do away with this barbaric practice in a single piece of voted legislation if not for the mainly Democratic pro abortion members of the US Congress and their elected Republican enablers. Nothing is etched in stone here.
Comment addendum: In fact the current reality is if any future administration chooses to follow the Obama established precedents a simple executive order could very well suffice to override current abortion practices. That this is “settled law, end of story'” is complete and utter nonsense and frankly demonstrates you don’t have even a rudimentary grasp on how our federal republic system even works.
Um. Wow. There’s just so much wrong here.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found abortion is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. The court can reverse itself, which is unlikely, or we can amend our Constitution, which is more unlikely. Those are the options to remove constitutional rights. Good luck.
I disagree completely, actually the court has reversed and modified it’s opinions on several occasions over the years in many areas on this issue EXCLUDING the single point of privacy and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, which actually has nothing to do with the actual act of abortion itself.
The Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion in assocciation with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to “privacy” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s DECISION to have an abortion, BUT that this right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life (a clarification generally ignored by the pro abortion lobby and supporters).
The argument that the state’s interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy. The Court later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey rejected Roe ’s trimester framework, while affirming Roe ’s central holding that a person has a right to abortion (based on the original 1973 privacy agrument and the 14th Amendment) until viability. The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”.
REGULATIONS which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State . . . may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” Thus, unless an undue burden is imposed, states may adopt measures “designed to persuade [a woman] to choose childbirth over abortion.”
I am in fundemental disaggrement that any final determination has been presented on the issue of right to “privacy” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the structural mechanism by which the State under our federal system may express profound respect for the life and protection of the unborn. The rulings post 1973 have never revisited this extrapolition of choice of termination of life to actual Fourteenth Admendent text nor visited the issue of choice as it related to inflicting egregious and deadly harm to others. All subsquent post 1973 rulings on Roe and Wade have been purported context clarifications and working around the edges. Where you see wrongness I see clear and readily available openings to redress an inappriotely applied interpertation of the Fourtheen Admendement. Regardless NONE of this precludes the state’s legislative function from passing legal statutes that may express profound respect and protection for the life of the unborn which are permitted within the context of Roe vs Wade.
The only redress for a Supreme Court misinterpretation of our Constitution is for the court to reverse itself or changing the Constitution itself. As for limiting abortions, while keeping it legal, states and Congress do have the ability and have used it — however, any restrictions on Constitutional rights passed by the legislative body are, rightly, subject to further decisions by the court.
Is Roe v. Wade set in stone? No, but it’s pretty close.
If Congress passed a statute merely declaring that it disagrees with the Court on the interpretation of Roe vs Wade, the Court’s interpretation presumably will continue to be binding, at least as a matter of domestic law as applied by U.S. courts. So under this scenario I agree with your point, change would be difficult to impossible. That is not an approach to be taken except for political theater. However, Congress can pass ANY statute restricting ANY abortion related ruling that Roe vs. Wade currently enables and by doing so such a “later-enacted statute” would supersede the authority of the latter at least for purposes of domestic law (just as a later-enacted statute trumps an earlier one when the two irreconcilably conflict).
Its really as simply as that. The law would be immediately revised and enacted. Would it likely be brought back before the Supreme Court at the behest of the pro-abortion forces, yes without doubt, but the arguments and science of 2015, regarding the inception of human life, have changed considerably since 1973 and the “choice” argument vs. the state’s obligation to protect human life under the Fourteenth Amendment would be a much tougher rationalization to bind your argument to today in my opinion (recall this question has never been revisited). Regardless of all the political hand wringing to actually do something is a trivial legislative excercise, what is lacking is the guts and the humanity to carry it out.
You can write all you want “if congress”, or “congress can pass”. They won’t.
Chief Justice Roberts and I believe it was Justice Sotomayor, both testified during their confirmation hearing that Roe was “settled law”.
When it comes right down to it. It is none of your, or my, business if the woman down the street has an abortion. It is also legal.
Where in the Bible is anyone on this earth told to be the police of righteousness? The Lord gives women the right to choose. Who are you to take that right away? The Lord gave Adam and Eve the right to choose between good and evil. Just as he gives everyone else that right.
“The Lord gives women the right to choose.” Heinous, Jim. That’s a truly outrageous thing to say.
Really? Are you saying that Eve did not have a right to choose between obedience and disobedience? Who’s Bible are you reading?
1 Timoty 2:14 tells us that Eve was deceived and became a sinner. Did Adam take away Eve’s right to choose?
It’s not about abortion, it’s about disobedience. Just as Eve had a right to choose, so do all women today. Men too.
Not all women
Ok, I’ll bite. Which women today cannot make the personal choice whether to follow either good or evil?
This is what is known as the fallacy of the false choice. Of course all women (and men) have the “choice” to be good or to do evil. But, in a civilized society, government constrains those choices by making certain patently evil choices unlawful. For instance, while a person can “choose” to commit murder, that does not mean it is their right to carry that choice to fruition.
[Apologies to all other readers for whom the foregoing text is entirely obvious, but RR needed it spelled out.]
Your comment is very interesting to me. I took all night to think about it because I wanted to get my response right.
Now if I understand your comment, our “civilized society” has these “government constrains” regarding our laws, and our God given right to freedom of choice?
Then tell me Steve, why are our courts and jails overflowing when we have these “government constrains” that you believe stop people from actually making a choice and carrying “that choice to fruition”?
Why then did you recently write the article calling for the overhaul of our system if these “government constrains” actually stop people from making a choice and performing evil acts?
If abortion was illegal, it would be very difficult to carry it to fruition. But just as they did before Roe, desperate women would find the means.
Only the women afforded the chance to be born may execute a choice.
So you believe that the rights of the unborn fetus outweigh the rights of the mother?
Ever hear of the “age of accountability”?
As an aside, I note that “settled law” is always raised when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to responsible gun ownership the Left continues to fight “settled law” and chip away at a right that was explicitly given to us in the Constitution.
You will get no argument from me. I am “pro choice” when it comes to guns.
Republican’s are not doing enough to maintain our right to bear arms. I do not believe that their heart is really in it. They had all three branches of government under Bush 43′.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS is allowed to chisel away until there is no longer anything left to chisel.
Which women?
Also of note, Rob Wittman voted against this and he also has government and military employees in his district. Doesn’t seem to hurt him.
That’s noted in the post.
I’ve hitherto been defensive of Barbara. She’s been generally good. But she and all the Republicans who voted for this have blood on their hands, given what we now know about Planned Parenthood. The only just thing for Congress to do would be to refuse to fund those butchers under ANY circumstances. If Obama wants to shut down the government over it, fine. Compared to that, I don’t give a damn if this is ‘kicking the can down the road.’ Bad budget policy is one thing, but subsidized slaughter of the innocents is another.
Comstock’s voting record is with Obama on all major issues arising since her election as a “conservative” candidate. We can expect to be able to project that trend into the future and should take it into consideration in backing an alternative candidate in the primary.