O.K. Shutdown averted, at least temporarily. But people on both sides have the right (duty?)
to ask what was the issue that forced this resolve to reach the ninth inning, bases loaded, with two strikes on the batter? Politics? To be sure. Politics "as usual"? I don't think so.
Numbers scare me. They can be orchestrated to support inconsistent conclusions. The stumbling block in negotiations was not whether to cut the budget. Both sides wanted this.Even how much to cut was negotiable. The potentially insurmountable barrier evolved around entitlements. Which ones to cut or cut out.
Consider Planned Parenthood funding. To intentionally generalize, one side points out that the rendered services embrace valuable counseling on women's issues diverse in nature, including, but not limited to, the concept of pro choice. The other insists that P.P.'s focus is anti pro life.
In substance, and in sentiment, and in reality, this is not a BUDGET issue. It is a SOCIAL agenda. A financial factor to be sure, but one driven by individual beliefs as to what should or should not be interwoven into our Flag's fabric.
It is almost universally reported that the prime mover supporting the elimination of P.P. federal funding is a contingent of ultra conservative right wing members of Congress.
Assume this to be true.
These people are, in the main, newly elected officials with a specific mandate: make social entitlements, such as P.P., disappear.
Who demanded that they follow this political agenda?
The people who elected them, strong enough in number to give them congressional membership.
Are they not responsible for the evolution of this relatively small but apparently influential block of politicians? So, if you take issue with their stance, should you not enlarge your focus of discontent so as to include the voters who empowered them?
"You lookin' at me?"