Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

Actually the drafters of the Constitution rejected a proposal that appropriations bills have to start in the House and the Constitution only requires that revenue raising bills have to start in the House but the House seems to have adopted the position that appropriations bills have to start in the House and just refuses to consider Senate-originated bills.

So it's not so much Constitutional law as Constitutional Calvinball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

From The Hill:

"Schumer filed cloture on a motion to proceed to H.R. 3935, the House-passed bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which could serve as a legislative vehicle to pass a continuing resolution to fund government through the Senate."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

From The Hill:

"Schumer filed cloture on a motion to proceed to H.R. 3935, the House-passed bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which could serve as a legislative vehicle to pass a continuing resolution to fund government through the Senate."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4217419-schumer-sets-up-path-for-senate-to-move-first-on-funding-stopgap/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.

Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.

What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?

If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.

In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.

I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.

No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.

But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.

1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken

2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.

1. Of course not. No one posting here does, unless there's the stray member of Congress wasting time on DCUM. What a stupid comment.

2. If depends on what you mean by failed. I don't think any shutdown has caused massive, catastrophic damage to the country. Unlike many posting here, my goal isn't to minimize the disruption to the federal workforce. It's what I believe to be the best for the country as a whole.

You are repeating yourself and you are wrong.

Of course I'm repeating myself - everyone is coming at me with the same thing. "But if you make a shutdown hurt everyone enough, the politicians won't let it happen." Are you trying for the record for most consecutive inane comments?

It may be time to consider that relevant facts that are not apparent to you may be apparent to "everyone" telling you--correctly--that you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

So, folks. Are we gonna have shutdown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, folks. Are we gonna have shutdown?

Who knows. Some ideas have been floated to get around the freedom caucus. But no one knows yet if these ideas will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, folks. Are we gonna have shutdown?

I'm a PP who has said "head in the sand" and "this is the big one" - i think yes, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

It's cool that McCarthy is poisoning any chance of democrats supporting him with the impeachment inquiry. Have we ever had a majority so dysfunctional that they can't even pass a party line budget? Usually the hard part is getting members in line when they have to compromise with the president or the senate, but the House can't even get to that point.

Not even getting military appropriations into a debate— after more than one try— is a bad, bad sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, folks. Are we gonna have shutdown?

Yes. We have Dems and moderate Rs in the House saying we will. And the House is adjourned until they start the impeachment inquiry (which will do wonders for bipartisanship /s). Hard for Dems to save a speaker while he has an active impeachment inquiry going— despite Rs not actually voting for that either. And time and oxygen spent on impeachment next week is time they are funding the government.

McCarthy isn’t even pretending he’ll try to fund the government at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

Actually the drafters of the Constitution rejected a proposal that appropriations bills have to start in the House and the Constitution only requires that revenue raising bills have to start in the House but the House seems to have adopted the position that appropriations bills have to start in the House and just refuses to consider Senate-originated bills.

So it's not so much Constitutional law as Constitutional Calvinball.

But doesn’t the budget contain revenue raising provisions, like any tax code tweaks and fees (national part, passport, PZtol etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

Schumer has attached a clean CR to the FAA reauthorization bill, which started in the House and is now in the Senate. This won’t solve the problem of the speaker not being able to put a clean CR on the House floor without losing his speakership but procedurally this is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

Schumer has attached a clean CR to the FAA reauthorization bill, which started in the House and is now in the Senate. This won’t solve the problem of the speaker not being able to put a clean CR on the House floor without losing his speakership but procedurally this is fine.

Can it pass the house with all Dems and a few Rs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

Schumer has attached a clean CR to the FAA reauthorization bill, which started in the House and is now in the Senate. This won’t solve the problem of the speaker not being able to put a clean CR on the House floor without losing his speakership but procedurally this is fine.

Can it pass the house with all Dems and a few Rs?

The issue is less can they pass it. And more, can they get it to the floor for a vote without McCarthy’s agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McCarthy send his folks home until Tuesday because there was no chance of a vote before then. And on a Tuesday or Wednesday, the House starts the Biden impeachment inquiry, which will suck all the oxygen out of the room.

And no matter how good a Senate bill is, funding has to start in the House, not the Senate. Constitutional Law.

Schumer has attached a clean CR to the FAA reauthorization bill, which started in the House and is now in the Senate. This won’t solve the problem of the speaker not being able to put a clean CR on the House floor without losing his speakership but procedurally this is fine.

Can it pass the house with all Dems and a few Rs?

The issue is less can they pass it. And more, can they get it to the floor for a vote without McCarthy’s agreement.

Yes, exactly. A clean CR might get 400 votes in the House but the speaker would have to ignore the freedom caucus to allow it to happen.

[Anonymous]

Folks at State are really pessimistic at the moment. I am excepted so a shutdown is a nightmare. 2-3x as much work. No pay.