Can we expect annual fed shutdowns until 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The citizens should demand two bills be introduced and passed by Congress: one which makes congressional pay stop with a shutdown, and another which establishes a federal shutdown insurance entity that provides said insurance as mandatory for every federal employee like the flood insurance program for people who live where private insurers won’t cover.

You want to avoid a shutdown?

Make all sitting members of congress ineligible for re-election if the government shuts down due to lack of appropriations.

Take care of shutdowns and term limits in one fell swoop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The citizens should demand two bills be introduced and passed by Congress: one which makes congressional pay stop with a shutdown, and another which establishes a federal shutdown insurance entity that provides said insurance as mandatory for every federal employee like the flood insurance program for people who live where private insurers won’t cover.

You want to avoid a shutdown?

Make all sitting members of congress ineligible for re-election if the government shuts down due to lack of appropriations.

Take care of shutdowns and term limits in one fell swoop.

This. Fail at keeping the government running? Lose your seat. All of them. We start over. Enough of this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Both sides are really only interested in playing political games to secure more power and money for themselves. They could easily pass legislation ensuring we don't have to shut down again, but they don't. They could easily pass legislation ensuring the subsidies are permanent and don't conveniently expire right around election time. They could easily pass legislation ensuring essential federal workers continue to get paid even if a new budget has not yet passed.

They do not do these things because both parties view the outrage and suffering of their constituents as leverage and motivation to continue electing them in the hopes they may eventually help.

Do you think more Americans would have a better idea of what going on (ie., more transparency) if bills didn't have so many riders? I get that bundling things can make things more efficient, but it also makes things so convoluted. I mean a Congress member could be ok with 95% of a bill, but be very against some rider representing the remaining 5%.

Yes they would. But our politicians like the lack of transparency. They like slipping in their poison pills and sneaking in things that would otherwise never pass on their own. They LIKE the games. For example, shutdowns were not a thing until the 80s. Our politicians changed the rules to allow for shutdowns, which gives them leverage for their political maneuvering. So the only way to end the games is to elect people running on the issue of ending the games, and to hold them accountable for following through.

I think it would be awesome to require Congress to use a system that tracks all accepted markups by username, any proposed amendments and so on and have it all realtime and public facing (except for anything CUI or classified). If the legislation doesn't go through the system it doesn't go up for a vote. And verified constituents should be able to comment and thumbs-up/thumbs-down sections.

I have suggested the same here in the past. Why isn’t a document change control function? Who added / changed / deleted what.