Homeland Security Chief Says 30,000 Will Be Furloughed
Feb 8, 2015 12:06:12 GMT -6
Glencairn likes this
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 12:06:12 GMT -6
Okay..... I read the title. Then, I read it again. Finally, just in case I missed something? I read it a third time. I'm still confused.....
Is he suggesting 30,000 furloughed from DHS would be a problem we should be unhappy about? (smirk)
Hell now, I'd never make light of something like that! It's too good for news to be silly with! (smile)
Source
I think he means to say the baby-in-chief wants it HIS way, all the way, all the time. No room for anything else...and after they get their way? Then, sometime later, there may be a non-binding debate about how far over the lines of law some things have gone.
Err.... Elections have consequences. They still aren't accepting that, are they?
Is he suggesting 30,000 furloughed from DHS would be a problem we should be unhappy about? (smirk)
WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on Sunday that he would have to furlough at least 30,000 workers if Congress does not agree to fund his department by the end of February.
“This is not a situation to make light of,” Johnson told CNN. “In these challenging times we need a fully funded Department of Homeland Security.”
“This is not a situation to make light of,” Johnson told CNN. “In these challenging times we need a fully funded Department of Homeland Security.”
Hell now, I'd never make light of something like that! It's too good for news to be silly with! (smile)
Johnson called for a clean funding bill to make it to the president’s desk, after which, he added, Congress could go about debating the efficacy and legality of the executive actions.
I think he means to say the baby-in-chief wants it HIS way, all the way, all the time. No room for anything else...and after they get their way? Then, sometime later, there may be a non-binding debate about how far over the lines of law some things have gone.
Err.... Elections have consequences. They still aren't accepting that, are they?