Those riders were not violations of that pledge. I already countered this argument earlier in this thread. The riders were specific to budget items and were contained in a budget bill. Where the **** else would you put spending restrictions except in such a bill?
A rider is an addition provision tacked onto a bill.
Yes. I'm not sure what you think this means. Riders may include anything. When they include things related to the bill in question, specifically in ways to more narrowly focus on specific aspects of the bill itself, they are perfectly acceptable. So an appropriations bill for "ongoing military effort in Iraq" might start out with that vague language and then have riders added to it which include things like "100 Million must be spent upgrading the armor on humvees" and "20 Million will be spent on developing anti-IED technology".
Riders may include things unrelated to the bill in question. For example, the same appropriation bill could contain a rider saying "50 Million must be spent providing food stamps to unwed mothers". I'm pretty sure that every intelligent person understands that the GOP is speaking of the latter group of riders/amendments in their pledge.
At least most intelligent people get this.
A rider is not tackling one issue at a time (as per the PtA).
A rider to win political points included in CR to allow the government to operate for a single week is NOT addressing the issue in the budget.
The riders in question were specific to funding already defined within the bill in question. This was a continuing resolution on a subset of discretionary budget items (non-military specifically IIRC). That includes funding for planned parenthood, the NEA, and NPR, just to name a few things. It is wholly appropriate to make funding decisions about those organizations within the bill defining the budget in which funding for those organizations is included.
Know where you "put spending restrictions?" In the budget itself,...
Um... Moron! The budget was never passed by the Democrats like they were supposed to. This CR is a bill which extends the previous budget through this year in order to avoid a mandatory government shutdown. I suspect you don't understand what's going on here. The CR *is* the remaining budget for those discretionary items for the remainder of this year (or until congress passes a budget for next year).
...not a CR to fund the government for a week - and especially not when it means shutting down the government and delaying pay to the military.
They were trying to put those riders into the budget for the remaining year, not just for a week. The Dems balked, so the GOP proposed an alternative which would pay out military paychecks for a week in return for passing the riders. I've already explained why they proposed this. It was specifically about showing which thing the Dems cared about more, paychecks for the military or funding for planned parenthood. As you say, this was a one week thing anyway, so it was never intended to be a full solution for anything.
Why do *you* think they proposed that? Seriously. Stop and think about it for a second.
The riders were a complete violation of the pledge - if you think shutting down Planned Parenthood, or restricting access to abortion in DC (completely legal, by the way) is not political, then you're just delusional. What part of "unpopular" and "must pass" legislation did you not quite understand?
Every part of the budget making process is "political". Otherwise no one would ever need to debate and negotiate, right? Let's not forget that this is a budget that the Dems were supposed to pass last year, and failed to do so. Suggesting that the GOP is somehow wrong because they promised to cut spending this year and in the CR designed to extend the budget through this year they attempted to cut spending seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what said promise was about.
I do understand what "unpopular" means. The problem is that it seems like a whole lot of spending cuts are "unpopular" to the Dems. Seems a bit unfair to just declare anything the other side does as unpopular and thus off limits somehow. Don't you agree?