News Will the House Funding Bill Ignite a Government Shutdown?

[Ryan_m_b]

Because it is not a parliamentary system. The legislatures (both House and Senate) and the executive (President) are all elected separately. So one frequently ends up with a President of one party, and a House and/or Senate having a majority of the other party.

Ah I knew that but thought that given that the electoral college is made up from the legislative elections that it would follow who has the most legislators. But thinking on that I've remembered that the number of congressmen per state is different so it's possible to win >50% of the states (and therefore likely win the presidency) but those states can count for <50% of congress. Is that right?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Because it is not a parliamentary system. The legislatures (both House and Senate) and the executive (President) are all elected separately. So one frequently ends up with a President of one party, and a House and/or Senate having a majority of the other party.

Which sometimes works well in the sense that sometimes less action by them is for our own good (because they block each other). This is a case where it fails.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Ah I knew that but thought that given that the electoral college is made up from the legislative elections that it would follow who has the most legislators. But thinking on that I've remembered that the number of congressmen per state is different so it's possible to win >50% of the states (and therefore likely win the presidency) but those states can count for <50% of congress. Is that right?

The Electoral College does not directly vote, though. They are required to vote according to the popular vote* (although most states have a winner-take-all system, which can skew results). In general, though, you can ignore the existence of the Electoral College, because only twice (3 times?) in the history of US elections has it ever differed from the popular vote (and only because the election was extremely close).

It is true that both parties engage in gerrymandering. This might result in a lot of "protected" seats, and this might have something to do with why the President often ends up from a different party from the legislative majority. But I think there are other causes.

*In the past, the Electors were independent and could actually vote however they wanted; but this was reformed at least 100 years ago to better represent the democratic vote of the people.

 

[D H]

Ah I knew that but thought that given that the electoral college is made up from the legislative elections that it would follow who has the most legislators. But thinking on that I've remembered that the number of congressmen per state is different so it's possible to win >50% of the states (and therefore likely win the presidency) but those states can count for <50% of congress. Is that right?

It's even easier to get lopsided results when Congressional districts look like this:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/yourhoustonnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/04/f0416b20-d305-5fba-9e20-e4e124d55b99/4f4db30797ab0.image.jpg

 

[AlephZero]

It's even easier to get lopsided results when Congressional districts look like this:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/yourhoustonnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/04/f0416b20-d305-5fba-9e20-e4e124d55b99/4f4db30797ab0.image.jpg

Are they are trying to repeal the four-color map theorem, as well as Obamacare?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Gerrymandering is a problem most of us can sympathise with.

Bit of a side track but this just popped up on my reddit feed and made me laugh: when Australia closed their government the queen just fired them all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/

 

[Pythagorean]

This is something I don't understand. How can the queen be just a figure head if she has the power to fire a large chunk of government in the commonwealth?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's not a commonwealth wide ability, rather an obscure part of the Australian constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

Also it's more complicated than the article makes it sound, it's not really the queen firing people but a legal procedure that passes through her Governor General.

 

[Pythagorean]

It seems a strange superposition to be a de jure constitutional monarchy and a de facto democracy.

 

[StevieTNZ]

http://nz.totaltravel.yahoo.com/new.../shutdown-felt-by-federal-employees-tourists/

Those who came to the US to visit museums etc. should be compensated, IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

http://nz.totaltravel.yahoo.com/new.../shutdown-felt-by-federal-employees-tourists/

Those who came to the US to visit museums etc. should be compensated, IMO.

Never mind them, what about the near million federal employees who have to take unpaid leave?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/tea-party-freshmen-to-become-sophomores-by-keeping-house-seats.html

According to this link, there are just 51 members of the House "Tea Party" caucus. This is down from 55 before last year's elections. This is out of 234 Republican House members. I don't understand why Speaker Boehner is so afraid to call a vote which could pass a "clean" bill. I guess he wants to get as much as possible from the Democratic controlled Senate before calling a vote on a clean bill, but it's clear the government shut down is not popular with the majority of Republican House members. This does not bode well for getting some agreement on the debt ceiling where the deadline is Oct 17.

 

[edward]

This really is not about a debt ceiling. It is about trying to eliminate the Affordable Healthcare Act by not funding it. Shutting down the government was a last do or die effort to avoid funding health care. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.

 

[Vic Sandler]

This really is not about a debt ceiling.

You're right, it isn't. It's about the budget. The debt ceiling will be an issue later this month.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Never mind them, what about the near million federal employees who have to take unpaid leave?

Them too.

Its sad it has come to this. The whole economy will be effected - how are those employees suppose to pay their mortgage/rent, food and drink, etc.? Unless they've got savings (which I don't think they want to dip into), they're really going to struggle. It's very unfair that a select few caused this to be inflicted on a lot of humans, and those who did not prevent this shutdown are still being paid (I believe?).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yup. And when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold, as the saying goes.

 

[mheslep]

Never mind them, what about the near million federal employees who have to take unpaid leave?

Never mind them, they're still to be paid on schedule, what about the 86 million (16 you and up) who have no job at all but still owe their share of 16.7 trillion in federal debt.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Never mind them, they're still to be paid on schedule

They're most definitely not paid on schedule, and some people

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netw...und-retro-pay-for-federal-workers-4857606.php

think they might not get paid at all.

Also I would note that if you are unemployed, you probably aren't paying federal taxes and so your share of the federal debt is approximately zero (not to say that being unemployed is a good thing, but your argument is ridiculous).

 

[turbo]

Also I would note that if you are unemployed, you probably aren't paying federal taxes and so your share of the federal debt is approximately zero (not to say that being unemployed is a good thing, but your argument is ridiculous).

This is a gross simplification. Everybody who buys stuff at retail is subject to sales taxes (local and state), and everybody with other tax obligations (excise taxes, property taxes, etc) all have to pay a share, which can go to the Federal government or at least offset their states' obligation to the Fed. Taxes are built into every transaction, and we all have to pay them.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Never mind them, they're still to be paid on schedule, what about the 86 million (16 you and up) who have no job at all but still owe their share of 16.7 trillion in federal debt.

1. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees including many charged with protecting us from terrorist threats, defending our borders, inspecting our food, and keeping our skies safe will work without pay until the shutdown ends.

2. Hundreds of thousands of additional federal workers will be immediately and indefinitely furloughed without pay.

http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml

 

[Office_Shredder]

This is a gross simplification. Everybody who buys stuff at retail is subject to sales taxes (local and state), and everybody with other tax obligations (excise taxes, property taxes, etc) all have to pay a share, which can go to the Federal government or at least offset their states' obligation to the Fed. Taxes are built into every transaction, and we all have to pay them.

I realize it's a simplification, but the implication that people who are at the lower end of the economic scale are being screwed by our large national debt is way more of a simplification. Plus local and state taxes are not involved with paying off (or reducing the rate of growth) of the federal debt so are irrelevant to the point - if anything, money flows from the federal government to the state, so as far as the federal government is concerned, it's borrowing money and taxing people so that people who don't pay income taxes also get to pay less in state and local taxes than they otherwise would.

This is not a statement about the effectiveness or efficiency of the tax system (a conversation about which is not appropriate for this thread) but merely me remarking that claiming that every American is saddled with an equal share of the federal debt is certainly the wrong way to look at things.

 

[mheslep]

They're most definitely not paid on schedule, and some people

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netw...und-retro-pay-for-federal-workers-4857606.php

think they might not get paid at all.

To be clear I was thinking in immediate terms. The next couple pay checks, today and Thursday, go out on schedule. After that no, though in all prior shutdowns those furloughed received pay retroactively.

Also I would note that if you are unemployed, you probably aren't paying federal taxes and so your share of the federal debt is approximately zero (not to say that being unemployed is a good thing, but your argument is ridiculous).

Debt obligation is based on taxes paid? How is that? If I was employed and paying federal income taxes yesterday but today I'm unemployed, has the US debt suddenly become a non-issue for me? Hardly. As the collapse in Greece and the like have shown, mounting debt eventually leads to unsustainable interest payments which block further borrowing, and devour all other government spending including transfer payments to those in need (like the unemployed).

 

[OmCheeto]

Sorry... But I really love seeing what the 7 billion other humans on this planet think about this:

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201310011923-0023078

:thumbs:

 

[DrClaude]

NIST has even shut down their website! See for instance: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/

I get information there at least one a week. This really sucks!

 

[lisab]

NIST has even shut down their website! See for instance: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/

I get information there at least one a week. This really sucks!

Me too -- I tried to get wood strength properties from the Wood Handbook (a fine publication from the Forest Products Lab), and it was not available.

No wood strength properties...wth?! This is personal now !

 

[AlephZero]

I don't understand why Speaker Boehner is so afraid to call a vote which could pass a "clean" bill.

If UK journalism (BBC, quality national newspapers) is to be believed, the Tea Party has got control of the Republican party appointments procedures.

So if "Speaker Boehmer" doesn't do what he's told, he would quickly become "the person formerly known as Speaker Boehmer".

And come the next round of elections, he wouldn't even a candidate - and neither would any other republicans who "voted for Obamacare".

 

[Vanadium 50]

t I've remembered that the number of congressmen per state is different so it's possible to win >50% of the states (and therefore likely win the presidency) but those states can count for <50% of congress. Is that right?

The US Congress has two chambers. The House of Representatives, which is apportioned by population (435 members) and whose members enjoy 2-year terms, and the Senate, where every state gets two seats (100 members) and whose members enjoy staggered 6-year terms. For a bill to become law, both houses must approve it, and the President must sign it. (I won't go into overriding vetoes here)

The way the budget process works is as follows. Constitutionally, all bills pertaining to the raising of revenue must originate in the House, and as a practical matter this means that all budget bills must start there, since these bills contain both revenues and expenditures.

A regular budget contains up to 13 spending bills - one for Defense, one for Energy and Water, etc. The reason for this is that debate on, say, whether the Navy can afford a new submarine should be independent from debate on whether the IRS needs a bigger computer. The last budget of this kind was in 2012. There is also a continuing resolution, which is a temporary spending bill to allow the government to function while a more permanent bill can be agreed upon. Often there is no agreement, and the entire fiscal year is spennt under a CR. In reecnt years, this has been the rule and not the exception. Note that one can (and does) get into a situation where part of the government is funded by a spending bill and part by a CR.

• First, the President submits his budget to Congress. This is purely advisory.
• Second, the House passes a budget. (Remember, budget bills start in the House)
• Next, the Senate passes a budget. This usually differs from the House version.
• The two bills go into what is called a "conference committee" - members from both parties and both houses and craft a compromise bill that they believe will pass both houses. Usually this bill is sort of an average of the two, but not always: sometimes a given item ends up with less than is in either bill.
• This bill is voted on, first by the House (budget bills start in the House) and then by the Senate. No amendments are allowed at this stage. If passed by both houses, it goes to the President for his signature. If not, it goes back to the conference committee. This is rare.
• The President signs or vetoes the bill. If signed, it becomes the budget. If vetoed, the whole process starts over in the House. It is not unusual for a veto of a budget for one agency. It is rare (I can think of no examples) when an entire budget is vetoed.

Where are we in this cycle? The President has made his request. The House has passed two budget bills. The Senate has not passed its own bill and in addition has voted against participating in a conference committee. With no compromise bill, there won't be anything to vote on, and so things have frozen to a halt.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If UK journalism (BBC, quality national newspapers) is to be believed, the Tea Party has got control of the Republican party appointments procedures.

So if "Speaker Boehmer" doesn't do what he's told, he would quickly become "the person formerly known as Speaker Boehmer".

And come the next round of elections, he wouldn't even a candidate - and neither would any other republicans who "voted for Obamacare".

I don't believe that is the case. Speaker Boehner (not Boehmer) has had primary challengers from further Right before. In 2012, he beat David Lewis by more than a factor of 5. In 2010, when Tea Party support was at its zenith, he beat his rightward challenger by more like 20:1.

What I think you are missing is how deeply unpopular Obamacare is in certain sectors. Looking at the weekend polls: 59% of Americans oppose it, 54% expect it to increase and not decrease health care costs, and 51% are supportive of a government shutdown to stop it, and only 17% believe it will help them personally. Unsurprisingly, these numbers are correlated with political party, so if you are a Republican legislator, your constituents are even less happy with it than the national average.

Unions, corporations and even Congress have sought exemptions from Obamacare. A thousand exemptions (including to Congress) have been granted, and there have been accusations that granting or not granting exemptions is influenced by political considerations.

It was passed by Congress without a single Republican vote - itself highly unusual. It passed the Senate by a single vote, just before a newly elected Senator who opposed the bill could be seated. Also, the bill had elements in it borne of political necessity that many felt unsavory: the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, where Nebraska would get a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement in exchange for the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, of Nebraska. This is all perfectly legal, but you can probably see why people who opposed the bill are unhappy with its provenance.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What I think you are missing is how deeply unpopular Obamacare is in certain sectors. Looking at the weekend polls: 59% of Americans oppose it, 54% expect it to increase and not decrease health care costs, and 51% are supportive of a government shutdown to stop it, and only 17% believe it will help them personally. Unsurprisingly, these numbers are correlated with political party, so if you are a Republican legislator, your constituents are even less happy with it than the national average.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Here's an example of a Forbes poll:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930

60% said it is more important to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the law. And then yesterday we got this poll:

According to the latest Quinnipiac Polling released Tuesday, by a 72-22 percent margin, voters opposed Congress shutting down the federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

This is remarkable far from the 51% supporting a shutdown that you claimed, and also has a nearly even split between finding the law favorable/unfavorabl, which is much closer than most polls report, but see the next sentence. The approximately 55-60% opposed number that gets thrown around a lot seems to come from polls in which people who thought Obamacare didn't go far enough (about 10%) were included in the "opposed", and they are obviously not supporters of the Republicans in this. For example:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

The CNN poll:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/30/rel10a.pdf

Favor is 38%. Opposed, too liberal is 39%. Opposed, not liberal enough, is 11%. So when you say you saw a poll that reported 59% opposed, that makes me think the poll is really reporting less than half of people support the Republicans here (and that's assuming everyone who opposes the Republicans is in favor of a shutdown!).

 

[Astronuc]

143-year-old law stirs fears during shutdown
By Steve Liesman | CNBC – Tue, Oct 1, 2013 3:34 PM EDT..

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/143-old-law-stirs-fears-193436176.html

Administration officials now live in fear of a 19th-century law that could get them fired, penalized or even imprisoned if they make the wrong choices while the government is shut down.

The law is the Antideficiency Act, passed by Congress in 1870 (and amended several times), which prohibits the government from incurring any monetary obligation for which the Congress has not appropriated funds.

. . . .

. . . Under the act, even volunteering for government service is expressly prohibited.

I heard a statement recently that a greater percentage of persons polled supported "Affordable Care Act" than "Obamacare," although the terms refer to the same law. In other words, the percentage in favor or disfavor depended on which term was used.