Government shutdown averted with bipartisan cooperation! Democrat senators from 9 states join GOP.

Photo above - Thumbs up! Fetterman and Schumer cooperate to avert a government shutdown.

Yes, I WAS rooting for a government shutdown (see my column earlier this week). But we live in an imperfect world and are forced to accept ugly compromises.

Nine democrats sided with the GOP to keep money flowing to every nook and cranny of our bankrupt government. Beyond Schumer and Fetterman, you can’t name any of these senators; there’s a link below if you want to test your knowledge.

Don’t blame Chuck Schumer for failing to launch a phone blitz and threaten democrats who wanted to avert a shutdown Take a look at all the OTHER important democrats who didn’t pull out rolodexes and help either:

1 – Former President Joe Biden. But to be fair he probably wasn’t even aware of the shutdown vote. Things elude him these days.

2 – Former President Barack Obama. He and Michelle have that $50 million Netflix deal, and taking controversial political stands is probably prohibited in their contract because it interferes with box office receipts.

3 – Former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, and her less famous husband "Bubba"

4 – Former Presidential Candidate Kamala Devi Harris.

5 – Current Presidential Candidate Gavin Newsom

6 – Probable Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg

Want me to keep going? I can do this all day. It’s not Chuck Shumer’s job to carry everyone else’s water, while those bigshots sit on their hands. Anyway, Chuck is probably worn out after his efforts all last year to convince Biden’s handlers that he was too impaired to win re-election, and that Kamala was too dumb to win. A prophet is always without honor in his own land.

But the question remains. Why are people like me – a fiscal conservative – willing to aid and abet a government shutdown? Same as it ever was . . . the national debt.

Trump's government funding bill is going to lead to at least a $3 or $4 Trillion increase in the federal debt, much quicker than anyone is willing to admit. It will embolden the president continue his trade wars, and to fire hundreds of thousands of federal employees nobody has even talked to. Like Air Traffic Controllers, and the people who will (hopefully) keep social security and income tax refund checks going out on time.

I could care less about tariffs on French champagne, or on Ford F150 water pumps made in Canada. Those Canadian tariffs were never going to stop Fentanyl anyway. Canada is just a middleman. Cut off narcotics at the source: China.

Chuck Schumer, an educated man, is certainly familiar with Napoleon Bonaparte’s famous quote: “Never interfere with your opponent when he is destroying himself.” (The modern version is: “Don’t pi$$ on someone while they’re on fire”). Voting to give Trump the spending bill he THINKS he wants is like throwing gasoline on him.

So don’t blame Chuck. He has his eyes on the prize. In 2026, when the senate flips from republican to democrat control, he will become majority leader again. Schumer is probably anticipating massive increases in the national debt, a stock market crash, and renewed inflation with accompanying fed funds rate increases. Chuck will pin these results on republicans during the midterm elections.

Trump’s all-in-one bill isn’t going to fix what’s wrong. If you want to do that, start thinking about passing an actual federal budget instead. It’s waaaay past due. And instead of mass firing those FAA air traffic controllers, why not close up some of the 800+ US military bases around the world? Rather than launching a trade war with Canada and Europe, focus all our attention on China: not only because of the fentanyl, but also the constant hacking of our electric grid, water supply, banks, 5G cellular service, internet providers and defense contractors. Oh . . . and China's incessant threats to invade and conquer Taiwan. We have an opportunity to make it clear that the 21st century will not be the one where China imposes its dystopia and human rights abuses on the rest of us.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted to Avert a Shutdown

Top | New | Old

JoyfulSilence · 46-50, M

I am glad they funded the government.

I work for it and have time sensitive work. A shutdown would have delayed it all, and cause a squeeze when we returned. Assuming we still had jobs by then.

Also, by law we still will be paid for the time on furlough, even though we did no work (it is illegal to work for the federal government for free, even if I wanted to). That is not fair to the taxpayer. I do not want free money. Unethical, in my opinion.

Jokersswild · 22-25VIP

You lost me at:

Cut off narcotics at the source: China.

That's both distasteful and vile! China is not the root cause of America's drug issues. No matter how much jealousy there is, the U.S. won't be able to stop the rise of China. Protectionism, in any form, whether it is aimed at Canada, Mexico, or China, is a contradiction to the principles of free trade and the capitalism you all claim to support.

View 3 more replies »

Khenpal1 · M

@Jokersswild India is emerging as a source for finished fentanyl powder and fentanyl precursor chemicals.CCP’s new controls address only three chemicals out of the hundreds produced and exported by China to make fentanyl. Synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, can be made through various chemical processes that require specific precursors. The CCP subsidises, and has no control measures on, NPP and ANPP—the two precursors most valued by Mexican drug cartels. Not only that, but the US has begun to intercept higher volumes of boc-4-piperidone (the other fentanyl precursor that was proposed for international control), 2-phenethyl bromide (including one shipment of 660 kilograms) and para-fluorofentanyl. These findings suggest a diversification by traffickers into the illicit manufacture of more fentanyl end products, bypassing the agreements made between the US and China. Chinese criminals used a similar approach to produce ‘novel substances’ and avoid regulatory controls. ‘Novel substances’ are designed to mimic the effects of existing illicit drugs or to produce new psychoactive effects.Other synthetic opioids may use different precursor chemicals. The production of all synthetic illicit drugs involves complex chemical reactions that typically require specialised knowledge and equipment.

China has long claimed that it cannot control illegal activities in its chemical and pharmaceutical industries due to the difficulty of identifying manufacturers exporting synthetic narcotics. But to receive a VAT refund, a company must provide details of the name and amount of the exported substance to the government, including complete identification and sales records. The US select committee’s April 2024 report also presented solid evidence that the CCP provided monetary grants and awards to companies openly trafficking illicit fentanyl online.

Without addressing the CCP’s systemic support for illicit narcotics, the new controls on three precursors are little more than a public-relations stunt to save face and obfuscate the party’s complicity in this deadly problem. If China wants to be a good global citizen, it must remove VAT subsidies on illicit pharmaceuticals, increase regulatory oversight and domestic law enforcement’s counter-narcotics efforts, and remedy international compliance deficits for all illicit pharmaceuticals.

While Australia doesn’t, at present, have a fentanyl problem, we do have a methamphetamine epidemic. Our epidemic, like the US one, is fed by chemical precursors produced in China. It’s imperative that Australia maintains an independent sovereign foreign policy, but there’s great value in Australia and the US adopting a shared stance against China’s illicit narcotics role. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/no-china-isnt-really-suppressing-its-production-of-fentanyl-precursors/

Khenpal1 · M

@Jokersswild Why tariffs won’t work
America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

A question of supply and demand
Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

This article was updated to include details of the tariffs once they were imposed.
https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-tariffs-cant-solve-americas-fentanyl-crisis-245978

Khenpal1 · M

@Jokersswild https://www.npr.org/2020/11/17/916890880/we-are-shipping-to-the-u-s-china-s-fentanyl-sellers-find-new-routes-to-drug-user

jehova · 31-35, M

Spot on

dale74 · M

Why can't they just shut the government down I mean 95% of them are non-essential which that would be a great start for who could be eliminated

dale74 · M

If Schumer and McConnell both vote for it the taxpayers getting bent over

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

When America does fall off the cliff, the Democrats wont be able to be blamed for any of it..😷

Add a comment...