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%.
Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, because Republicans can't govern.
We're starting to save money for the next shutdown and limiting Christmas presents and travel.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not just annual if they simply keep passing short-term CRs.
Fair enough. I guess I was thinking we'd eventually move beyond a CR in a federal fiscal year. Silly me.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Not just annual if they simply keep passing short-term CRs.