The shutdown may have started over a hare-brained attempt by Tea Party darling Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to delay and/or defund President Obama’s signature health-care reform (it is sure to fail because Obamacare’s implementation is not contingent on passing a federal spending plan).
In which Gillespie outright lies about a suspect government report pushed by a Republican who hates Ted Cruz, excerpts of which were published in a rag that also hates Cruz, and which Gillespie then proceeded to mischaracterize because he, too, hates Ted Cruz (at least as far as Rand Paul goes).
This is from Gillespie’s cite:
The CRS report is another way to attack defunding: by pointing out that, even if the federal government shuts down, Obamacare can still continue pretty much apace.
“It appears that substantial ACA implementation might continue during a lapse in annual appropriations that resulted in a temporary government shutdown,” CRS analysts concluded.
Note the careful weasel-wording: “appears…substantial…might…”
That’s a far cry from “…it is sure to fail because Obamacare’s implementation is not contingent on passing a federal spending plan.”
Defunding Obamacare: Questions & Answers, Excuses & Responses
POLICY AND TECHNICAL
“What do you mean by defunding Obamacare?”
Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (debt limit, annual spending bill, etc.) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.
“There is no such thing as defunding Obamacare.”That is a false statement.
Go ahead and read the whole thing, which was produced by Heritage Action For America, a political arm of the Heritage Foundation, whose own wonkish output is at least as respected by many as that of the CRO. I’m sure that Gillespie is quite familiar with this data, although he mentions none of it.
Now, I am famous for impugning the motives of my supposed betters, so I guess I’ll just keep right on doing it. If it looks like spinach, and smells like spinach, it’s spinach, damn it, and I hate it. And Gillespie is full of…spinach…here.
So, why would Libertarian Gillespie present only one side of an argument as undisputed fact? Because he’s a partisan pushing for Libertarian Rand Paul, and Cruz has stepped all over what national momentum Paul was able to build about drones and isolationism, and is now far ahead of him in the race for the 2016 nomination in the hearts and minds (and balls) of the hardcore conservative activists who play such a huge role in primaries.
So Gillespie writes a hatchet piece on Ted Cruz – yes, that’s what this is – and seasons it with knee-slappers about how grossly bloated government has become, even as he and Rand push hard for opening America’s borders wide, and legalizing all the aliens already here. I’m sure that will help shrink the Leviathan state.
But getting jiggy with the “Destroy Ted Cruz” movement will help to ensure his continued welcome at all the better Ruling Party dinner tables in Washington, D.C. So there is that much.
That’s right, Nick. You push all your dishonest, sneering little asides at Cruz, and I’ll sneer at the pathetic obviousness of your motives and the naked hackery that rises from them.