Shutdown

[Fireball]

Don't these polls show that while people hate congress, and blame the repubs for the shutdown and think they shouldn't control the house, they still think that their rep is doing a good job and should be re-elected?

If that's the case then nothing will change.

I'm not sure about now, but last week in the final throes of the shutdown, polling showed that a plurality of folks supported replacing their own representative if it would help improve the situation in the Congress.

I hope that's not universally true!

[NickAragua]

To be a democracy, there's more than just giving everyone a single vote. You also have to take measure of the conditions those different votes are cast in. Under the system you have laid out, the vote of a voter in Maine would be far more efficacious than the vote of a voter in California because of the vast disparities created by your "elect everything statewide" concept.

I'm going to work through some math here for a few minutes. A few points and assumptions:
- A microvote is 1 x 10^-6 votes.
- We assume a 100% voting rate (ha ha)
- We don't account for the fact that votes for losing candidates are effectively discarded, as if the individual had not voted at all

Let's start with Senate elections. California has 38 million people, Maine has 1.8 million. To determine the effectiveness of an individual vote, you take the number of people voting "on your behalf" at the federal level, and divide by the total number of individual votes cast in the state. Since everybody votes for only one senator at a time, we get the following:
# California senators being elected / population = 1 / 38M = .02 / M
# Maine senators being elected / population = 1/ 1.8M = .55 / M

So, in the Senate, each Californian has .02 microvotes, while a Maine resident has .55 microvotes. The stated goal for the Senate is to give the little guy a greater voice, so this is working as intended.

Now, we'll go to house of representatives election. Each rep needs to go up for re-election every two years. California has 53 reps, Maine has 2. Same population numbers.
# California reps being elected / population = 53 / 38M = 1.39 / M
# Maine reps being elected / population = 2 / 1.8M = 1.1 / M

So, a Californian voting for reps in a state wide election has 1.39 microvotes, while a guy from Maine voting for reps in a state wide election has 1.1 microvotes. So, there's a disparity, but it's actually in favor of Californian voters, not Maine voters. Because the stated goal of the house of reps is to provide larger population states with a greater voice, this is working as intended (although we could adjust the number of reps in Cali or Maine to get a more appropriate ratio).

BTW, I'm all for a parliamentary system, with a queen-appointed governor, if for nothing else other than humor value and the ability to toss everyone out if they're dicking around and not doing their jobs (or doing their jobs a little too well).

[Zarathud]

IRS agent came back from the Shutdown to say that his bosses are now unable to make the same settlement offer that was under 1/2 the tax liability -- which we couldn't accept. So pissed off right now, the time away was supposed to make it easier for them to settle and reduce the caseload. Now they just don't care.

[Isgrimnur]

Dec 11 deadline

With just seven work days remaining before the Dec. 11 deadline, the new speaker will aim to leverage his political honeymoon into a strategy that will avoid another federal shutdown.

But already Ryan is under pressure to tack on a host of GOP policy provisions to the $1.1-trillion spending bill -- among them efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, halt the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S., and repeal Obamacare.

Forcing any of those extras into the bill might bolster support from Republican conservatives, but it would also unleash a backlash from Democrats, setting up a showdown in Congress and with the White House.
...
President Obama previously said he would not sign another temporary funding bill beyond the one that runs out Dec. 11, but the White House softened that Monday, opening the door for a stopgap measure for just a few days.

[Defiant]

*bump*

With just four days to go before the government runs out of money to operate, Democrats helped block a short-term spending measure from moving forward Tuesday afternoon in the Senate because the legislation did not include funding to help the community of Flint, Michigan, recover from a lead water crisis that it has been grappling with for more than two years.

There were four Democrats who voted to move the measure, known as a continuing resolution, forward. There were 13 Republicans who voted to block the legislation.

link

[Isgrimnur]

Mark your calendars.

Negotiators in the House and Senate have reached a deal on a bill to fund the government through Dec. 9.

Republicans and Democrats have been arguing for weeks to find a way forward before the Sept. 30 deadline in order to avoid a government shutdown.
...
Both sides were in agreement, however, that whatever bill moved forward would need to keep the government open through mid-December and provide emergency aid to fight Zika. The final bill does both.

The biggest issue leading to gridlock was that an earlier Republican proposal contained aid for flood victims in Louisiana but not for victims of the lead contaminated water in Flint, Mich., as NPR reported last week.
...
Republicans insisted that the Flint issue was best dealt with in a separate bill — one related to water infrastructure.

The Senate version of that water bill does contain Flint aid, but the House version — up until now — had not. On Tuesday, House leaders finally agreed to add $170 million of assistance for Flint to their water bill. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid says he now sees a path forward on the government spending bill.
...
The end date of December 9 was also a point of contention. At the start of this fall's legislative session, a group of conservative House Republicans were pushing for the spending bill to last six months and expire in March of 2017.

Their reasoning was that a spending bill that lasts only through the middle of December — which is the case in the agreed-upon bill — means lawmakers will have to pass another spending bill before President Obama leaves office.

Those House conservatives are concerned the bill's expiration date will lead to a flurry of last-minute deal making and concessions to the president in the scramble before the holidays.

[tjg_marantz]

And we wonder why nothing gets done. The fuck does LA and Flint have to do with anything. They need to stop allowing these things. Then yoy might some stuff done.

[Rip]

And we wonder why nothing gets done. The fuck does LA and Flint have to do with anything. They need to stop allowing these things. Then yoy might some stuff done.

Nothing new, attaching stuff to unrelated bills to get stuff they couldn't get otherwise is a favorite tactic of both sides.

[El Guapo]

And we wonder why nothing gets done. The fuck does LA and Flint have to do with anything. They need to stop allowing these things. Then yoy might some stuff done.

Flint needs money to replace the lead pipes which have been causing major health problems there. Louisiana needs money to help people rebuild after the disastrous floods there. Sufficient money to do both of those things, at least in the short term, resides more at the federal level than the state or local level. The continuing resolution governs outflows of government money at the federal level, hence it is a rational place to debate whether and how much federal money should be spent on (among other things) helping Flint and Louisiana recover.

Of course, that's not to say that money for either or both couldn't also be authorized via separate bills (Republicans say they wanted to include the Flint money as part of a water maintenance bill or something like that). However, because the continuing resolution is important there's more potential leverage in pushing for expenditures as part of that (whereas if the Flint money were not included in the CR there wouldn't be a clear way for democrats to prevent the water maintenance bill from being scrapped or not including the money then or the like).

[El Guapo]

And we wonder why nothing gets done. The fuck does LA and Flint have to do with anything. They need to stop allowing these things. Then yoy might some stuff done.

Nothing new, attaching stuff to unrelated bills to get stuff they couldn't get otherwise is a favorite tactic of both sides.

Yup. Plus in this case it's not actually unrelated - it's putting additional expenditures into a general expenditures bill.

[tjg_marantz]

And we wonder why nothing gets done. The fuck does LA and Flint have to do with anything. They need to stop allowing these things. Then yoy might some stuff done.

Flint needs money to replace the lead pipes which have been causing major health problems there. Louisiana needs money to help people rebuild after the disastrous floods there. Sufficient money to do both of those things, at least in the short term, resides more at the federal level than the state or local level. The continuing resolution governs outflows of government money at the federal level, hence it is a rational place to debate whether and how much federal money should be spent on (among other things) helping Flint and Louisiana recover.

Of course, that's not to say that money for either or both couldn't also be authorized via separate bills (Republicans say they wanted to include the Flint money as part of a water maintenance bill or something like that). However, because the continuing resolution is important there's more potential leverage in pushing for expenditures as part of that (whereas if the Flint money were not included in the CR there wouldn't be a clear way for democrats to prevent the water maintenance bill from being scrapped or not including the money then or the like).

My question was rhetorical, hence the lack of ?. And granted, this may not be the best example as the funding for both LA and Flint are tangentially connected. I just have to shake my head anytime a bill/motion/etc gets held up because of something marginally connected to it, at best.

Sorry I used this example as a sounding board, was not the best.

[Fireball]

It's really not tangential at all. The CR is a funding bill that aggregates numerous spending priorities into one bill. Adding Flint and Louisiana is hardly inappropriate. In fact, I think they should have included Zika funding, as well.

The entire budgeting process is too cumbersome and needs to be streamlined.

[El Guapo]

It's really not tangential at all. The CR is a funding bill that aggregates numerous spending priorities into one bill. Adding Flint and Louisiana is hardly inappropriate. In fact, I think they should have included Zika funding, as well.

The entire budgeting process is too cumbersome and needs to be streamlined.

I thought that they did include Zika funding.

edit: looks like $1.1 billion for Zika.

Though it's not done until it's done and signed, of course.

[Defiant]

They need to stop holding the country hostage every time we need to raise the debt ceiling, in order to get what you want, and both sides do it. Yes, what you want to spend the money on is worthwhile, but not to the extent of creating an unnecessary fiscal crisis.

(Of course, what a few of the Republicans in the past have wanted *was* the unnecessary fiscal crisis)

[Zarathud]

I think it comes down to campaign money. Both sides need to extract money from donors for re-election, and perpetual crises help shake the tree. Otherwise budget committees would have the time and incentive to get their job done.

[Smoove_B]

Hey, it's that time of year again when the government is going to shutdown:

When Congress returns in September the House will have just 12 legislative days to raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid default — and the same amount of time to approve a spending deal to avert a government shutdown.

...

Some congressional Republicans openly admit there is a strong possibility the GOP will quickly abandon a broader spending bill in favor of a short-term funding measure to keep the government open, perhaps through the end of the year. One of the likely solutions would continue current spending levels through the middle of December to give lawmakers more time to negotiate a broader deal.

I think it's awesome that this is the new normal. Also, it will be great to see them try and pass something related to healthcare while simultaneously avoiding the shutdown - because if nothing else, this Congress is super efficient. Some would say it runs like a well-oiled machine, just churning out well-thought legislation.

[malchior]

Agree - this is totally a sane way to run the world's biggest economy. That said I'm less worried about the shutdown though it'd be bad. My real concern is a default either chosen or accidental. With this cast of idiots anything is possible.

[LordMortis]

I find it hard to believe they'd allow a shutdown, as the people who contribute the least and take the most are the people screaming the loudest that we might as well shut it all down. Of course now that they are at reigns, they might just say "fuck it, let's burn it down, cause that's what we really want any way." It's hard to know how do deal with crazy. Do they just want the spice flow so they can continue ranting or do they really think they're better off making iron from peat so the can cast their swords and hammers in their personal furnace?

[Skinypupy]

To be fair, budgeting via continuing resolution has been the norm for quite a while. As someone who sells to government, we expect it every year, and work our asses off to get as much as possible funded prior to 9/30 every year.

[El Guapo]

I find it hard to believe that we would wind up with a shutdown or debt ceiling default, as that would be insane on so many different levels, but *especially* political. Would hurt the economy at least a little going into the 2018 election season, AND there's no one else for the Republicans to credibly blame for it, seeing as how they're in charge of everything at this point.

I mean, if any group could stumble into self-sabotaging madness like that it would be this group, but I am still inclined to assume that it won't happen. I wouldn't be surprise if it wound up being a simple clean extension of the current situation because they can't agree on anything else, though.

[Smoove_B]

Right, but they have 12 whole days to work on this. So if they fix the healthcare issue in the first 10, that gives them a solid 48 hours to approve the budget. I'm completely confident this won't turn into a circus.

[Isgrimnur]

Time

President Donald Trump says a government shutdown “could happen” Saturday, and he is blaming it on Democrats’ stance on immigration.

Speaking Wednesday before a Cabinet meeting, Trump blamed Democrats for opposing his border security and hardline immigration plans. He says they are “looking at something that is dangerous for our country.”

Some Democrats have called for a legislative fix for those previously covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program before Trump canceled it earlier this year.

Democrats want the fix to be included in legislation to keep the government open past Friday. The White House has called for tighter immigration controls and increased border security funding in return.

Trump says of Democrats: “They want to have illegal immigrants pouring into our country.”

[Skinypupy]

I'd be really surprised if this happens. When it was serious last time, all my government clients spent weeks scrambling around making contingency plans. I have yet to hear someone even mention it this time around. Hoping that reflects reality and isn't just optimistic thinking on their part.

[ImLawBoy]

FWIW, my company just broadcast (as in, it ended 15 minutes ago) a live town hall with our CEO, Paul Ryan, and Steve Mnuchin, largely to talk about the tax policy. During Q&A at the end, someone asked Ryan whether there would be a shut down, and he didn't hesitate a second before saying no. He seems pretty confident that things will keep running.

[malchior]

I'd be really surprised if this happens. When it was serious last time, all my government clients spent weeks scrambling around making contingency plans. I have yet to hear someone even mention it this time around. Hoping that reflects reality and isn't just optimistic thinking on their part.

I haven't seen anything about it either and I work for a large federal contractor. Last time they had an email out by now.

[RunningMn9]

Same here, working for the DoD. Not a peep, and there's always been a peep before.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, same at the SEC. Near universal expectation seems to be that a deal will get done.

That said, Trump is prominently involved, and there are also some flamethrowers on the democratic side, so....who knows. I'd personally put the odds of a shutdown at like 5%.

[Chaz]

I'm gonna be awfully annoyed when the dems knuckle under on this.

[Kraken]

I'd be more annoyed if they used a Republican obstructionist tactic to grandstand. It's my understanding that House Republicans want a "dreamer" solution by the end of the year anyway. If that gets screwed up, let the blame fall squarely on Trump.

[Fireball]

Republicans have the trifecta. If they want to keep the government open on their own terms, they can do it. If they need Democratic votes to do it, they have to give us DACA. It's entirely on them.

[malchior]

Just got a note about a possible shutdown from the bossmen in chiefs at work. I think it is more precautionary to avoid chaos *if* it happens.

Edit: Sidenote it is sad that the email referenced the 'Shutdown process'. What a way to rule over the world's largest economy.

[pr0ner]

I haven't heard anything from my agency, but we are immune to shutdowns in the short term.

[El Guapo]

Two week continuing resolution passed (until Dec. 22nd). No shutdown (for now)!

[Jaymann]

Two week continuing resolution passed (until Dec. 22nd). No shutdown (for now)!

I envision a future that will require eternal weekly resolutions to keep the doors open.

[pr0ner]

Two week continuing resolution passed (until Dec. 22nd). No shutdown (for now)!

I envision a future that will require eternal weekly resolutions to keep the doors open.

Before Trent Franks resigned, he was posting on Twitter an update of how many days its been since the House passed its appropriations bills and the Senate has done nothing to take them up for debate/passage. No matter how bad those appropriations bills might be, the fact that the Senate is doing nothing with them is pretty bad.

[Fitzy]

Arise! Since it looks like we are getting one.

I admit to confusion. How are the Democrats going to successfully blame the Republicans for shutting down the government if they (the Democrats) succeed with their threatened filibuster?

Other than another stupid can kicking there is nothing in the CR that is bad. There are no policy riders. There is a 6 year extension for CHIP. There is literally nothing they can point to to say OMG EVIL REPUBLICANS!

Demanding a DACA fix seems like the exact same thing the republicans did in 2013 with demanding the end the Obamacare. It’s an unrelated item that should be dealt with in its own bill or at ballot time in Novemember.

I tend to lean Democrat, but this has to be among the dumbest strategies I’ve ever read about. This is nothing but a badly thought out cynical ploy to try to claim the Republicans can’t govern. It should backfire badly unless the American people are even dumber than electing Trump showed.

[em2nought]

So if the government shuts down, can Trump fire everybody and make all new hires? Sounds like a great idea. Didn't seem to hurt with air traffic controllers under Ronnie.

[El Guapo]

Arise! Since it looks like we are getting one.

I admit to confusion. How are the Democrats going to successfully blame the Republicans for shutting down the government if they (the Democrats) succeed with their threatened filibuster?

Other than another stupid can kicking there is nothing in the CR that is bad. There are no policy riders. There is a 6 year extension for CHIP. There is literally nothing they can point to to say OMG EVIL REPUBLICANS!

Demanding a DACA fix seems like the exact same thing the republicans did in 2013 with demanding the end the Obamacare. It’s an unrelated item that should be dealt with in its own bill or at ballot time in Novemember.

I tend to lean Democrat, but this has to be among the dumbest strategies I’ve ever read about. This is nothing but a badly thought out cynical ploy to try to claim the Republicans can’t govern. It should backfire badly unless the American people are even dumber than electing Trump showed.

I mostly agree, though I think it's less a ploy to claim that the Republicans can't govern, and more that they genuinely believe in the importance of DACA (and the pointless cruelty of ending it), and the budget is their only real leverage point before DACA ends. I agree that it's like what Republicans did in 2013. Which leaves me torn - I do (as with most people, per polling) strongly support DACA, and if Republicans are going to make budget standoffs over this kind of stuff a thing, it's fair for democrats to do it as well. On the other hand that's not great for the general governance of the country.

We'll see how this plays out, I guess.

[Zaxxon]

Agreed.

[YellowKing]

Historically the party in power gets the blame for shutdowns, so maybe Democrats are banking on that to give them cover. Besides, polls show the public doesn't support the GOP Congress even when they're actually getting stuff done. I doubt a he said/she side partisan spat on who's truly to blame is going to make much difference one way or the other. And the Dems at least have the moral high ground.