What is the bar to the House passing a budget, with everything except funding for PP? Does the budget need 60 votes in the Senate? If not, you can pass a budget and avoid a shutdown (a bad idea, as a shutdown is just what the Dems want) and cut PP out in the process.
Let BHO veto the budget without PP and let him take the heat for a change.
Why are we funding PP in the first place?
Need a Speaker who will stand up and say very clearly “we gave BHO EVERYTHING he wanted, except this single narrow atrocity - is selling baby parts _so_important_ that BHO is willing to shut down the government to get it? well I say if the government _does_ fund such atrocities it _deserves_ shutdown!”
Instead we get someone who mumbles and takes the blame, giving way after a few mean words.
I, for one, am tired of the omni/cromni-bus bills, stuffed to the gills w/ favors to this-n-that with little to NO debate or exposure to the public, for whom must PAY.
Return to passing a bill for EACH AND EVERY department, minus 10%.
Then we can say “Decide what/where is more important. XYZ or PP/PBS/etc.”
If they had a PAIR the share, I’d then adjourn, leave town and say “We passed the budget as the Constitution requires.”
Alas, we all know Pelosi has a bigger set.
Because Obama said he would veto it if it doesn't have PP funding, and McConnell and Boehner said ok then, we'll fund it. At some point, it's clear they are on the other side, and just playing a little dance with their voters.
It's my understanding that the house bill fully funded the government, did not fund PP, but instead, took the money slated for PP, and spread it around to other clinics that actually did real good for women, and not abortions. No cut in overall funding.