Will the House Funding Bill Ignite a Government Shutdown?

[Astronuc]

The House on Friday approved a bill to temporarily fund the government that would strip funding for the 2010 federal health care law known as Obamacare, a move that will set up a showdown with the Senate next week that could result in a government shutdown.

. . . .
The move by House Republicans comes amid a fierce internal party battle over how to tackle the Affordable Care, a law that was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012. For months, Republican leaders resisted calls from conservative members in the House and Senate to use the CR as a vehicle to defund the law, but they relented this week by announcing that the bill sent to the Senate would not include funding for the law. They preferred, instead, to seek a delay of the law's individual mandate to purchase health insurance by tying it to a vote to raise the federal government's borrowing limit.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-sends-g...nate-without-obamacare-funding-145746956.html

I experienced the government shutdown of 1995 and 1996, and watched a company in demise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

 

[Borg]

Yay, the circus is in town!

According to http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53065413/#53065413, they have tried defunding Obamacare 41 times and shutting down will cost 100 million per day. But hey, got to stand up for your principles 42 times right? I wonder if it would be possible to defund congress.

 

[BobG]

Yay, the circus is in town!

According to http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53065413/#53065413, they have tried defunding Obamacare 41 times and shutting down will cost 100 million per day. But hey, got to stand up for your principles 42 times right? I wonder if it would be possible to defund congress.

No - at least not completely. Doing so would violate the 27th Amendment.

It would be possible to defund Congressional staffs, stop paying the gas and electric bills, etc, which would make things very unpleasant for Congressmen.

But the Senators and Representatives would still have to be paid.

 

[dlgoff]

It would be possible to defund Congressional staffs, stop paying the gas and electric bills, etc, which would make things very unpleasant for Congressmen.

How about adding tax loopholes?

 

[Mk]

reminds me of this.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-ve-kept-debt-exactly-16699396000000-4-months

 

[FlexGunship]

How come the government never shuts down around tax collection time? Is the IRS the only non-shut-downable governmental entity? Maybe that's a really ignorant thing to say, I don't know.

Maybe we could just take a break from the legislative branch for a year and see how it goes. You know, let congress close the doors. The president can keep filling his role and the courts can keep operating. Keep the same budget from the previous year (or maybe the one from 2000... see the chart below, two Republican chambers and a Democrat president) and keep all of the laws the same for one year. Just coast.

I dunno, I guess it's stupid. Just tired of hearing "we're going to shut down the government!" Fine, just keep it isolated to your branch. Turn the lights off when you leave and leave the checkbook on the counter.

http://figures.boundless.com/50b3cf83e4b0c605c0eaeb64/full/budget-deficit-or-surplus.gif

 

[russ_watters]

May I ask how that graphic relates to your post?

 

[FlexGunship]

May I ask how that graphic relates to your post?

The goal was to pick an arbitrary budget (the one from 2000, for example) and just use that in place of the budget jockeying that's threatening to "shut down" the government. In the text above the graphic I pointed out that there is a vague similarity in the gross politics (we have only one Republican chamber as opposed to two in 2000).

It's a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Was the correlation not clear?

Essentially, the mock conversation goes: "we can't agree on this, so we'll just let the government shut down." "Okay, fine, but we're just shutting down your branch. Since you're not here to do the job, leave the checkbook and we'll just use the budget from 2000."

 

[AlephZero]

The goal was to pick an arbitrary budget (the one from 2000, for example) and just use that in place of the budget jockeying that's threatening to "shut down" the government.

Why 2000? Isn't the Only True Solution For Every Problem "do the same as we did in 1776"?

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

As a percent of total gdp government revenue was higher in 2000 than it has ever been since. We were in the tail end of a bubble and had a higher tax rate so it seemed like a really good year compared to the 2000s, but that has nothing to do with the budget being better.

 

[russ_watters]

It's a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Was the correlation not clear?

Seems an odd cherry-pick and an out-of-date and not very useful chart. In addition to being fools-gold: the balanced budget was an illusion and a reflection of the cause of the mess we're in right now. We can't match that budget unless the economy matched those conditions, neither of which are really desirable.

As a percent of total gdp government revenue was higher in 2000 than it has ever been since. We were in the tail end of a bubble and had a higher tax rate so it seemed like a really good year compared to the 2000s, but that has nothing to do with the budget being better.

Right. And in $ terms and in % of GDP, spending is much higher today than it was in 2000 but income was higher in 2000 as a fraction of GDP (but not actual $).

 

[BobG]

Maybe we could just take a break from the legislative branch for a year and see how it goes. You know, let congress close the doors.

Isn't this what a certain faction of the House is trying to do? Better to have government shut down than pass a budget that a minority of Americans disapprove of?

 

[ramsey2879]

Isn't this what a certain faction of the House is trying to do? Better to have government shut down than pass a budget that a minority of Americans disapprove of?

Whether or not a majority of Americans favor the current budget, it appears that a majority of Americans would rather see the Senate continuing resolution passed than to have a government shutdown, but the House will not let such a bill come up for vote since a majority of Republicans opposed it.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Whether or not a majority of Americans favor the current budget, it appears that a majority of Americans would rather see the Senate continuing resolution passed than to have a government shutdown, but the House will not let such a bill come up for vote since a majority of Republicans opposed it.

Yes. I believe the Senate bill (funding the government with no action on Affordable Care) would probably pass on a roll call vote but the ability of the Speaker to not allow a vote could again frustrate the democratic process. The so called "majority of a majority" is not necessarily a majority of the elected members of the House.

EDIT: Currently there are 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats (including one "socialist") in the House, so assuming all Democrats vote for the bill, 17 Republicans would need to cross over to pass the bill.

 

[jhae2.718]

NASA potentially goes on furlough tomorrow, excepting essential operations. :(

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think this is an appropriate image

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...l-be-paid-if-government-shuts-down/?hpt=hp_t1

"For everyone who thinks that compromise is impossible in Washington, I would point to this as an example," said Cruz, the Texas Republican who has led the charge against Obamacare in the Senate.

Yup, they're patting each other on the back for their amazing bipartisanship yesterday.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I wonder what effect this shutdown will have on the markets tomorrow...

 

[Office_Shredder]

Hah! The first thing I wondered is how many of our esteemed congressmen went short on the market this afternoon.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Looks like it's happened
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24343698

 

[jtbell]

I wonder what effect this shutdown will have on the markets tomorrow...

US stock futures are actually up this morning, about a half hour before the opening bell.

 

[D H]

US stock futures are actually up this morning, about a half hour before the opening bell.

That's partly in response to a perhaps overly precipitous drop yesterday. The DJIA hit a low of down 170 yesterday before rebounding slightly to down only 128.257.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.usda.gov/fundinglapse.htm​

We're sorry, the government you are trying to reach, has been disconnected. If you believe you've reached this message in error, please try again, or move to Canada. beeeeeeeep...​

 

[jtbell]

If you're in Washington and want to watch the sausage-stuffing as they attempt (or not) to fix this, you're out of luck. Tours of the Capitol have been suspended:

https://twitter.com/visitthecapitol/status/384893197073121280

 

[Borek]

God bless America. Each time I think politics in my country is totally screwed up, US shows that it can be worse.

 

[lisab]

God bless America. Each time I think politics in my country is totally screwed up, US shows that it can be worse.

“Everyone in life has a purpose, even if it's to serve as a bad example”

- Carroll Bryant

You're welcome.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I used to know this by why exactly do the republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives yet the government is democrat run?

 

[turbo]

I used to know this by why exactly do the republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives yet the government is democrat run?

The Republicans at the state level gerrymandered their districts to provide "safe" seats for the GOP. That's the explanation given by Dem apologists, and I am inclined to believe them.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/gop-could-pay-price-for-gerrymandering-93597.html

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks Turbo but I meant more in the sense of why is it that the American political system can have minority ruling party? In most other countries that would result in a vote of no confidence (because said party wouldn't be able to get their legislation through) causing a reelection.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I used to know this by why exactly do the republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives yet the government is democrat run?

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.

 

[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?