US government Shutdown

[TimothyC]

The first indicator that someone can't be taken seriously in a political discussion is when they refer to the president as Berry (or was it Barry? You apparently can't decide which).

That was a typo. I suppose I should use the same standard for when people insult Republicans? How many times was McCain referred to "McSame" "McLame" or "The Gimp" or Dubya was referred to as "The Shrub"?

[Siege]

There was a last-ditch attempt by more moderate Republicans to prevent the shut-down but they couldn't sway the nutjobs.

That makes me wonder: could those moderate Republicans not simply have broken party rank? I'm not privy to the details of US governance but to me the sentiment that a small group of crazy ideologues can hold the federal government hostage by threatening to shut the whole shebang down every few months is confusing. Surely you'd need at least half-plus-one of whatever chamber of government decides on these matters to not pass a budget, and assuming that not fully half of said chamber's delegates consists of Tea Party nitwits it stands to reason that the moderates are, ultimately, tagging along with the crazies.

Is that broadly correct? Because if it is, how moderate are these moderates really if in the end they'll enable shutdown instead of crossing the aisle as a show of responsibility / as a gesture of condemnation? Mind you, this could be me projecting European sensibilities on a situation deeply unsuited for it, but it just seems counterintuitive to me so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.

[Thanas]

Siege, you are missing the primaries. If the GOP moderates break ranks, they will get tea-partied in the primaries. Ergo, they lose their job and influence.

It may also be that the GOP knows that if Obamacare takes of and is a success, then they will have lost the next one or two election cycles. So they try to delay it as much as possible.

[Crossroads Inc.]

There was a last-ditch attempt by more moderate Republicans to prevent the shut-down but they couldn't sway the nutjobs.

That makes me wonder: could those moderate Republicans not simply have broken party rank? I'm not privy to the details of US governance but to me the sentiment that a small group of crazy ideologues can hold the federal government hostage by threatening to shut the whole shebang down every few months is confusing. Surely you'd need at least half-plus-one of whatever chamber of government decides on these matters to not pass a budget, and assuming that not fully half of said chamber's delegates consists of Tea Party nitwits it stands to reason that the moderates are, ultimately, tagging along with the crazies.

Is that broadly correct? Because if it is, how moderate are these moderates really if in the end they'll enable shutdown instead of crossing the aisle as a show of responsibility / as a gesture of condemnation? Mind you, this could be me projecting European sensibilities on a situation deeply unsuited for it, but it just seems counterintuitive to me so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.

Right now in America, it is impossible for Moderate Republicans to ACT moderate. The far right movement is in the middle of an ongoing purge of anyone who has not drunk the Tea Party Kool Aid as it where. Basically any Republican that acts moderate, is challenged by a wacko nut job in the primaries. This usually ends with the nutjob winning the primary, and either going on to win the house seat, OR A more moderate Democrat defeating the Tea Party candidate.

SO it is basically a loose loose situation for the Moderates in the GOP.
What you have to understand is that GOP FEARS it's base right now.
If the Moderates in the party had broken ranks last night and voted with House Democrats to simply pass the spending bill without any sort of "Defun/Defraud/Delay" health care riders... The country as a whole would have cheered and shouted hooray and thanked them... But.. BUT When they go home to their congressional percents, they will find hate mail, recall petitions and groups jumping up and down to kick them out of office.

[amigocabal]

There was a last-ditch attempt by more moderate Republicans to prevent the shut-down but they couldn't sway the nutjobs.

That makes me wonder: could those moderate Republicans not simply have broken party rank? I'm not privy to the details of US governance but to me the sentiment that a small group of crazy ideologues can hold the federal government hostage by threatening to shut the whole shebang down every few months is confusing. Surely you'd need at least half-plus-one of whatever chamber of government decides on these matters to not pass a budget, and assuming that not fully half of said chamber's delegates consists of Tea Party nitwits it stands to reason that the moderates are, ultimately, tagging along with the crazies.

Is that broadly correct? Because if it is, how moderate are these moderates really if in the end they'll enable shutdown instead of crossing the aisle as a show of responsibility / as a gesture of condemnation? Mind you, this could be me projecting European sensibilities on a situation deeply unsuited for it, but it just seems counterintuitive to me so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.

Of course, this begs the question.


Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out? Debra Saunders, a newspaper columnist, asked where the moderate Democrats were in a column over a year ago.

Were there any moderates on either side willing to give concessions?

[Justice]

There was a last-ditch attempt by more moderate Republicans to prevent the shut-down but they couldn't sway the nutjobs.

That makes me wonder: could those moderate Republicans not simply have broken party rank? I'm not privy to the details of US governance but to me the sentiment that a small group of crazy ideologues can hold the federal government hostage by threatening to shut the whole shebang down every few months is confusing. Surely you'd need at least half-plus-one of whatever chamber of government decides on these matters to not pass a budget, and assuming that not fully half of said chamber's delegates consists of Tea Party nitwits it stands to reason that the moderates are, ultimately, tagging along with the crazies.

Is that broadly correct? Because if it is, how moderate are these moderates really if in the end they'll enable shutdown instead of crossing the aisle as a show of responsibility / as a gesture of condemnation? Mind you, this could be me projecting European sensibilities on a situation deeply unsuited for it, but it just seems counterintuitive to me so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.

Of course, this begs the question.


Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out? Debra Saunders, a newspaper columnist, asked where the moderate Democrats were in a column over a year ago.

Were there any moderates on either side willing to give concessions?

There are absolutely moderate Democrats out there, especially in the red states. The problem is that the Republicans have slid so far to the right that it's no longer about "concessions" but "total victory", which is why we are in this situation right now.

[Thanas]

There are plenty of moderate (read: Ultra-right-wing for European standards) democrats. Just look at who voted against extending patriot act powers once again. There are hardly any full-blown liberals left in the Democratic party.

Also, why should the Democrats give even more concessions? The political fight has been fought. The legal fight has been fought. What moral rights do the GOP have to continue to try and stop a law which has been legitimized by all parties to the democratic process?

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm curious if I'll be getting paid my final paycheck this week now. Normally I would have gotten paid on the 30th or perhaps the 27th of last month, because of some logistical issues a final paycheck has to be done manually. So, my end of month pay from Sept was held and should be paid this week along with the several weeks of unused leave I'm selling back. That is of course if the fed employees are still at work today. Oh yeah, I'm out of the military, so no more government single payer health care for me! Hello exchanges! Oh wait, the tea baggers want to not only deny me the money I earned in service to this country, but they don't want me to get health care anymore because I'm just an unemployed vet unfairly sucking from the tit of the job creators.

Good job Jeff Miller, if I'm unlucky enough to still be living in your shithole of a district come mid terms don't be counting on my vote.

[Mr Bean]

Most of them really are, there are usually something like 21 separate funding bills each year for 'government spending', it's really not just one huge on vote deal.

Which means 21 places to hide kickbacks I mean district specific funding. I agree with Patroklos that the inability to pass a budget for going on half a decade now is kind of a terrible thing.

Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out? Debra Saunders, a newspaper columnist, asked where the moderate Democrats were in a column over a year ago.

Were there any moderates on either side willing to give concessions?

Funny enough Democratic moderates are called "Democrats" while Republican Moderates are called "Blue dog Democrats". Moderate Republicans are an extinct breed except on the local level.

At least on the corporate welfare side anyway.

[Knife]

Most of them really are, there are usually something like 21 separate funding bills each year for 'government spending', it's really not just one huge on vote deal.

Which means 21 places to hide kickbacks I mean district specific funding. I agree with Patroklos that the inability to pass a budget for going on half a decade now is kind of a terrible thing.

Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out? Debra Saunders, a newspaper columnist, asked where the moderate Democrats were in a column over a year ago.

Were there any moderates on either side willing to give concessions?

Funny enough Democratic moderates are called "Democrats" while Republican Moderates are called "Blue dog Democrats". Moderate Republicans are an extinct breed except on the local level.

At least on the corporate welfare side anyway.

I agree an actual budget is an ideal thing. I just don't understand the 'whatever you call it to fund government' doesn't really count COZ BUDGET isn't in the title, argument.

[Justice]

A budget would be a wonderful thing, though the problem is how far apart the two sides are starting. At the moment, given how the Republican budget looks, any debate is going to look a lot like this with less stock laughter:

[Gaidin]

Siege, you are missing the primaries. If the GOP moderates break ranks, they will get tea-partied in the primaries. Ergo, they lose their job and influence.

It may also be that the GOP knows that if Obamacare takes of and is a success, then they will have lost the next one or two election cycles. So they try to delay it as much as possible.

Is there a way for them to get it to the floor without Boehner anyway? Not being exactly familiar with procedure, if Boehner's not willing to break ranks, wouldn't the moderate GOP being willing to break ranks be a moot point anyway?

[Wing Commander MAD]

Really what the trouble with the "moderate" Republicans boils down to is a problem endemic at all levels of government in the U.S., perhaps barring the lowest levels of local government and maybe those entering office for the first time: They are more concerned with having their job in the future, than they are in actually doing their job in the present.

[Crossroads Inc.]

For those wanting a quick summary of events...
I just got this in an e-mail from a friend of mine that I think sums things up masterfully.

House GOP:
"Ok, so We will keep funding the government, ONLY If you gut and defund Obamacare!"

Senate Dems:
"No we are only going to pass a bill that funds the Government."

House GOP:
"Ok fine! We will keep funding the government, if you Delay Obamacare for a full year!" (conveniently until after the next round of Elections)

Senate Dems:
"No we are only going to pass a bill that funds the Government."

House GOP:
"You drive a hard bargain! We will keep funding the government, if you delay the key insurance mandate of Obamacare then!" (this would effectively make it impossible to implement the affordable care act as intentioned)

Senate Dems:
"No we are only going to pass a bill that funds the Government."

House GOP:
"You people are impossible to negotiate with!!! It is all your fault the government shut down!"

[Mr Bean]

Really what the trouble with the "moderate" Republicans boils down to is a problem endemic at all levels of government in the U.S., perhaps barring the lowest levels of local government and maybe those entering office for the first time: They are more concerned with having their job in the future, than they are in actually doing their job in the present.

To be exact they are only interested in keeping the job long enough to do enough favors to the right people so they can line up a nice lobbyist gig after they get out. Minus the old guard who stay in (Graham) because they love the respect they get as elected representatives.

[amigocabal]

Of course, this begs the question.


Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out? Debra Saunders, a newspaper columnist, asked where the moderate Democrats were in a column over a year ago.

Were there any moderates on either side willing to give concessions?

There are absolutely moderate Democrats out there, especially in the red states. The problem is that the Republicans have slid so far to the right that it's no longer about "concessions" but "total victory", which is why we are in this situation right now.

Well, so far none of them have come forward yet to offer suggestions, such as which parts of the ACA should take effect, and which parts should be delayed. Of course, this may not be true by the time I check back on this thread...

SO it is basically a loose loose situation for the Moderates in the GOP.
What you have to understand is that GOP FEARS it's base right now.
If the Moderates in the party had broken ranks last night and voted with House Democrats to simply pass the spending bill without any sort of "Defun/Defraud/Delay" health care riders... The country as a whole would have cheered and shouted hooray and thanked them... But.. BUT When they go home to their congressional percents, they will find hate mail, recall petitions and groups jumping up and down to kick them out of office.

Well, this is a reasonable prediction, as two Democratic state senators in Colorado were recently recalled- in districts where Democrats have a solid advantage.

Meanwhile, New York State Senator Ruben Diaz opposed Governor Andrew Cuomo's eventually successful to reach out to Republicans to balance the New York state budget- and was "punished" with re-election.

there is no reason why Republicans would be immune from this phenomenom.

[Simon_Jester]

Touche. I fully accept your argument. Now, do you accept the fact that while some Republicans consider delaying the ACA more important than giving Berry the checkbook that some Democrats feel the exact reverse?

Some Democrats (waves hand) would rather see a government shutdown for a few weeks that leaves the Tea Party about as popular as Attila the Hun... than see the Tea Party get every talking point they desire in perpetuity by giving them the right to take the budget or the national debt hostage every time they don't get their way.

TimothyC, do you not see how poisonous and irresponsible this method of 'governance' can be if it becomes a regular, successful practice? Imagine trying to fight a war with this kind of financial crap going on every time the antiwar faction gets their underwear in a knot. Imagine trying to build a major infrastructure project. Imagine trying to solve urban poverty (say, as an alternative to gun bans in urban areas while still addressing urban crime).

Imagine trying to do anything serious about anything, if every time the opposition has a beef with what's going on, they lock down the whole government until their demands are met.

So YES, I would rather the Tea Party try this, and fail, and get smacked at the polls for holding the continued function of the US government hostage to their demands, than have them get what they want without a shutdown, and know they are free to do the same damn thing all over again in three months.

I'm not entirely clear on how trying to overturn something or get it pushed back is 'refusing to obey' it. It's being obstructionist, but it's not like they are murdering thugs out for a night on the town.

When you have tried to overturn the law 43 times in the legislature, challenged it multiple times in the Supreme Court, and enacted massive obstructionism at the provincial level... that's pushing the line between "obstructionist" and "open revolt," but not crossing it.

When you start holding the continued function of the government hostage, you're starting to cross that line.

The first indicator that someone can't be taken seriously in a political discussion is when they refer to the president as Berry (or was it Barry? You apparently can't decide which).

That was a typo. I suppose I should use the same standard for when people insult Republicans? How many times was McCain referred to "McSame" "McLame" or "The Gimp" or Dubya was referred to as "The Shrub"?

And did you take their political arguments seriously after they started doing that?

There was a last-ditch attempt by more moderate Republicans to prevent the shut-down but they couldn't sway the nutjobs.

That makes me wonder: could those moderate Republicans not simply have broken party rank? I'm not privy to the details of US governance but to me the sentiment that a small group of crazy ideologues can hold the federal government hostage by threatening to shut the whole shebang down every few months is confusing. Surely you'd need at least half-plus-one of whatever chamber of government decides on these matters to not pass a budget, and assuming that not fully half of said chamber's delegates consists of Tea Party nitwits it stands to reason that the moderates are, ultimately, tagging along with the crazies.

Is that broadly correct? Because if it is, how moderate are these moderates really if in the end they'll enable shutdown instead of crossing the aisle as a show of responsibility / as a gesture of condemnation? Mind you, this could be me projecting European sensibilities on a situation deeply unsuited for it, but it just seems counterintuitive to me so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.

I think your analysis is essentially correct. The relevant details in the US are:

1) Party discipline for Republicans in particular is very strong. The Republicans have a fairly centralized network of core donors and support structures, and breaking party ranks on an important issue is a good way to get disowned and undermined. Sort of like, oh, breaking with Moscow as a member of a European communist party, although without the risk of being assassinated. This is why you get Republicans doing insane things in lockstep- it's sort of like how the British communists did abrupt about-faces from "denounce this capitalist and imperialist war!" to "second front now!" during World War II.

2) Primary elections (to choose party candidates for a given seat) in the US are dominated by extremists, especially for Republicans. Moderate Republicans constantly fear a challenge in the primary by extremists from their own party, who promptly steal the seat out from under the moderate. This is part of what gives rise to (1); if the extremists can't rely on you to at least tacitly support their agenda, they'll find someone who will.

Criticisms which suggest themselves about the Republican Party on this basis are, in my opinion, accurate.

Of course, this begs the question.

Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out? Debra Saunders, a newspaper columnist, asked where the moderate Democrats were in a column over a year ago.

Were there any moderates on either side willing to give concessions?

Illiteracy about the meaning of "beg the question" aside, what exactly would your idea of a moderate Democrat look like? What concessions would they make, which the existing Democrats have not offered?

[Highlord Laan]

I purpose a new bill. One to defund Congress indefinitely until new employees are found, with the money saved give back to the states these failures have supposedly been representing.

If I don't do my job, I get fired. I see no reason not to hold politicians to the same standard.

[Gandalf]

I purpose a new bill. One to defund Congress indefinitely until new employees are found, with the money saved give back to the states these failures have supposedly been representing.

If I don't do my job, I get fired. I see no reason not to hold politicians to the same standard.

If only a portion of the employees at your job fuck up, does everyone get fired?

[Simon_Jester]

If this were happening in a parliamentary country, this is when we might have the head of state step in, dissolve the Government, and declare new elections because the current Government clearly is not working.

Whether the dissolution would extend to the Senate as well as the House, I cannot say.

Now, the members of the existing Government would be free to run again for office in the new elections- but they would have to run on a record of bringing about the near-total collapse of the existing system, in the middle of the consequences of that collapse, which is exactly what they deserve.

[Gaidin]

If only a portion of the employees at your job fuck up, does everyone get fired?

The problem with this statement is that the 'employees' that are 'fucking up' may or may not be viewed as doing their job 'right' by their constituency...the voters' mileage may vary depending on how long the shutdown last and is felt.

[Siege]

Siege, you are missing the primaries. If the GOP moderates break ranks, they will get tea-partied in the primaries. Ergo, they lose their job and influence.

But as I understand it, the primaries are like a pre-election to determine who will stand for a certain position for a certain party, right? So these so-called moderates are vying in their own electorates with Tea Party candidates who presumably are considerably farther to the right of them. But then the question becomes, how moderate can you really be in a district like that? Are they really moderate, or is their presumed moderation just an electoral trick to garner moderate votes, i.e. 'thank god I'm not that nutter next door'?

I guess what I'm asking is, what do these presumed moderate Republicans have to show for their status of moderate Republicans? Are they really? Or is it just a case of leveraging their status as not being quite as bad as the crazies whilst at the same time being pretty much just as crazy? What I'm getting at is, if you can't act moderate, as Crossroads Inc. and Simon_Jester are essentially saying, are you really moderate at all? What makes you a moderate if you're not ever acting moderate?

Of course, this begs the question.

Where are the moderate Democrats to whom these moderate Republicans would reach out?

Are you asking me? 'Cause if you are, you're asking the wrong dude. American politics confound me utterly. I have no particular fondness of the Democrats, but as a guy hailing from a compromise-based democracy I find the way the Republican party acts in matters such as these profoundly disgusting. That doesn't mean the other guys are particularly to my liking.

[Rogue 9]

Can anyone here name any spending of note the Democratic Senate has put on the table in the past year to get a budget through before CR time?

As anyone who knows anything about the constitutional structure of the United States federal government (a category that apparently does not include you) knows, the Senate may not initiate spending bills.

[Gaidin]

Can anyone here name any spending of note the Democratic Senate has put on the table in the past year to get a budget through before CR time?

As anyone who knows anything about the constitutional structure of the United States federal government (a category that apparently does not include you) knows, the Senate may not initiate spending bills.

What about the part where the House has demonstrated this particular CR and shutdown isn't really about the budget anyway? I imagine that's the simple reason the only change made to the House bill was to knock off the rider and send the CR right back all night.

[phongn]

But as I understand it, the primaries are like a pre-election to determine who will stand for a certain position for a certain party, right? So these so-called moderates are vying in their own electorates with Tea Party candidates who presumably are considerably farther to the right of them. But then the question becomes, how moderate can you really be in a district like that? Are they really moderate, or is their presumed moderation just an electoral trick to garner moderate votes, i.e. 'thank god I'm not that nutter next door'?

Closed primary elections bring out the most ideologically committed base in a disproportionate way, especially in gerrymandered districts that are safe for a party.