As the wind howls outside my window, we learn more about the mediation going on between the NFL and the NFLPA. After talks broke down last week, and the March 4th deadline steadily nears, the two sides agreed to enter formal mediation to try and resolve their differences. As we have noted here at Caputo's Corner, there are several. The most imporant of which is how to split the $9 billion in revenues. Right now, the players like it as is with them receiver 60%, whereas the owners are asking them to take only 50%.
Gotta love it when millionaires are bickering with billionaires.
In a somewhat related note, the Federal Government is planning on shutting down on March 4th along with the NFL. OH NO, BIG BROTHER'S GONNA CLOSE!!!!!! Relax, you'll still get your mail. The House this morning passed (on a party-line vote) a budget containing $60 billion in cuts from what the President initally authorized. Of course, Obama's going to veto it, if it even gets that far. Nevertheless, since the GOP controls the purse strings now in the House, get ready for a long standoff very similar to when the government shut down in the 1995 with the Clinton White House and GOP Congress.
And yes, even if the government is closed, tax day is still April 15th.
Here is a very interesting piece from Time of all things chiding the union protesters in Wisconsin for doing the same things that they railed against Republicans for doing when the Democrats held majorities. As I said in my short take, Democrats lost. Despite what the protesters say, they are NOT the majority in Wisconsin anymore. The majority voted for something that they don't necessarily support. So instead of physically blocking this democracy they all crave, let it do what it's supposed to do...and tell your state senators not to run away to Illinois. Stay classy, Wisconsin. The only thing I disagree with is that the author says that both parties cow to union leadership for political points. Give me a break, it's just the Democrats who cow to unions and everyone knows it. Thanks again, to Josh for that link.
Just a nitpicky point, but President Obama didn't "authorize" any budget - that is not within the powers of the executive branch. Presidents send their budget "requests," but it is up to Congress (and specifically, the House of Representatives) to form the actual budgetary legislation that will authorize and fund the various executive departments.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, one thing that's irked me the last week or two in the whole budget kerfuffle is Republicans' shots at Obama for not "leading." Motherfuckers, HE CAN'T SET THE BUDGET! Paul Ryan said something to the effect of "the President punted on this budget." No, the President submitted his budget REQUEST. You don't have to follow it. You don't even have to read it. Michelle Bachmann probably doesn't know HOW to read it ("What are all these squiggly lines on this stack of paper?"). I understand that the President, as head of the executive branch, is theoretically in a better position to know what kind of money is needed to run the various departments. But Congress has no fewer than 148,734 committees with oversight over specific executive departments and programs (OK, my math may be a little off there). So it's not like they DON'T know how the Department of Agriculture works, and what it's budget sheet looks like - they set its budget!
I know it looks like I'm just bitching about Ryan and company bitching about Obama's budget request, but if you think about it, I ACTUALLY want REPUBLICANS to be in charge of the budget, NOT the President - even a Democratic one such as Obama. I lament the presidential takeover of the budget process like I lament the ridiculously low turnout in midterm elections. Both are indicative of the weakening of the PEOPLE'S BRANCH within the federal government, or our perceptions of Congress being unimportant. Congress STILL makes the budget, NOT the President.
I must agree that it is odd to hear you say that. Now, the logical follow up question would be why do YOU want REPUBLICANS in charge of the budget as opposed to Democrats...who controlled the purse strings for 2 year?
ReplyDeleteThere's two reasons, really. Primarily, it's simply institutional. Congress controls the budget. The President doesn't. The President can't "lead" in an area where he has no power or authority. It's the House Budget Committee, and then the House in full, that should initiate and control the budget process.
ReplyDeleteThe second reason is for compromise purposes. I know it's highly unlikely that a compromise is going to brokered, and we're all gonna die with the United States $432 trillion dollars in debt, but the way I see it, the only way we're gonna fix this mess is to compromise on each of our interests. Republicans can't cut social spending without paying for it politically; Democrats can't cut defense spending and raise taxes without paying for it politically; and with the dysfunctional Senate, nobody can get anything done without 60 fucking Senators. So, Democrats have to give a little on entitlement rollbacks, and Republicans have to give a little on raising taxes and defense spending rollbacks. Plain and simple. The only way that's going to happen with Obama as President for the next six years is with a Republican-controlled House that acts responsibly in concert with him. We've got the Republican-controlled House, so let's see if the rest comes to fruition.