Gov't Shutdown

[empath]

State department is supposed to stay open, but I'm willing to wager it's with a skeleton crew. If there's any justice, all those with open cases get their temporary visas extended (much like your ISP would 'comp' you for the same duration of a service outage)...but this is burro-cracy.


And the whole issue is predicated on this - think of the U.S. Congress being a minority government.

There is Democratic president, and the Senate IS 52 Dem, 46 GOP & 2 Indie...but the 'lower' House of Representatives is 232 GOP and only 200 Dem (and 3 currently vacant).

And to make it even more interesting, bills need a 2/3 approval to pass through a given house, so the Senate isn't very safe for the Dems, either...and it's smaller with just 100 seats, so it only takes 34 GOP sens to block ANY bill from passing.

So if the 'Republicant' leadership gets convinced to tell the caucus to back the opinions of its more extremist members, a GOP 'moderate' is stuck with a dilemma:

either he thinks over the issue and weighs both sides and thinks about the consequences for his constituency and votes what is best for the group of people that elected him (y'know, what Georgie wanted)...

...or he blindly follows a party line (or even blindly takes the action that opposes his 'enemy' over on the other side of the House).



What amuses me is that the larger GOP majority in the HoR let the Continuing Appropriations Resolution through, with funding for the ACA intact, but the Senate Republicans are the ones who stalled it, ripped out the ACA funding, and sent it back down to the HoR, who then PUT THE FUNDING BACK IN and PASSED IT AGAIN...

Political parties, huh? Someone wanna go hook up a dynamo to Washington's coffin? I think the FedGov could use the revenue from selling the electricity thus generated...

[Metcarfre]

And to make it even more interesting, bills need a 2/3 approval to pass through a given house, so the Senate isn't very safe for the Dems, either...and it's smaller with just 100 seats, so it only takes 34 GOP sens to block ANY bill from passing.

And, now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason you need 2/3rds rather than a straight majority is that votes >50%, <2/3 can be filibustered, a fun little gimmick that a certain, unnamed party seems to trot out a bunch...

Not that Democrats haven't/wouldn't use the filibuster, but I seem to recall some pretty good data on the party split on that one.

[iamafish]

filibuster?

[empath]

Yeah, but sometimes a filibuster can be a GOOD thing. But your point is taken.

[Metcarfre]

Somebody reads from a phone book all day and it prevents the bill from being voted on, and thus doesn't pass.

It's a legislative maneuver used to block bills a minority party dislikes.

[iamafish]

ah yeah, so talking out a bill, which also seems ridiculous...

[Metcarfre]

Yeah, but sometimes a filibuster can be a GOOD thing. But your point is taken.

Haha, I was just trying to link that too. She's running for Governor now, though I doubt she has a snowball's chance in hell. Although, oddly enough, Texas was solidly Dem until recent memory.

[Lord Hosk]

What gets to me the most is that after this is all said and ruined, the people who will get reelected will be the tea party crazies, the republicans who will lose their seats over this will be the moderate ones running in contested districts who have a platform of "Im here to represent you, I want to be your voice in Washington" and they will lose to Crazy left wing radicals who will I dont know, try to outlaw cars or something.

[MotorWaffle]

Motorwaffle, there's video. And MSNBC covered it as well. So did Slate. So did NPR.

I am aware that all three of those organisations do have leftish leans, but they're all credible, especially with the video source.

Yes, those I will take seriously.

[MetricalSky]

another difference with Westminster systems (certainly Britain's in any case) is that this whole disagreement would never have been possible. If the opposition disagree with the budget, there's not a lot they can do except for saying why they disagree with it. If the party in power doesn't want to listen to their disagreements and has the support of their backbenchers, they can force any legislation through, the commons and even the lords; who can only send a bill back three times before it just gets forced through.

That's certainly true of majority governments, but I was thinking of minority governments. Unlike Britain, the current political parties in Canada have an aversion to forming coalitions, so when we have a hung parliament, we just go with it. The last election was caused by the opposition parties voting down the minority Conservative's budget.

Incidentally, I found out yesterday what keeps our government running in such a scenario: the Govenor-General issues special warrants allocating funds as needed until Parliament reopens.

[AdmiralMemo]

Yeah, but sometimes a filibuster can be a GOOD thing. But your point is taken.

Not sure how that one was good.

[gcninja]

So far at grand canyon it looks like all the salary workers are running the store, the local concessions is mostly closed and offering cheap meals to their workers and if this keeps up for two or so more weeks, they may send their workers home. couple problems being that the people working for them tend to not A) have the funds, ESPECIALLY after being out of work like this for that long B) can't just "up and leave" with some of them having quite a bit of stuff C) have no other place to go
My father and his coworker are set to start trading weeks on and off as all they need is a skeleton crew and my mother is working only a few hours a week at the local clinic now instead of her real gov't job.
in other news

[JackSlack]

Yeah. Much as the filibuster HAS been used to block bad legislation in the past (See: Civil Rights movement) I have to confess I find it hard not to see it as anti-democratic.

And also, no, they don't stand around and talk all day. That was seen as inefficient. So now they just motion to filibuster, and there's a cloture vote. No vote, and the bill is filibustered.

[Lord Hosk]

I fully support the filibuster, it is the ultimate stand for the minority has it been abused, yes, has it been used for minority opinions which are in the minority for a reason? yes. However if there is a bill being voted on that is just wrong, but no one will listen because of party this or party that, you can be that man, or that woman, stand up, and say NO, for as long as it takes to get people to listen.

This whole "Im gonna filabuster that" bullshit is bullshit though. Thats "I dont like it so I aint gonna pass it" not giving voice to the voiceless in one last stand.

http://westwing.wikia.com/wiki/The_Stackhouse_Filibuster

or in real life what Representative Davis did down in Texas this past June.

[AlexanderDitto]

I am all for the filibuster when they actually have to filibuster; not this "I'm going to filibuster it" "well OK I guess we won't vote on it" bullshit.

I also think they should have to actually talk about the bill when they're filibustering, but as we saw in the Wendy Davis case, when the people you're filibustering are the ones who judge what "on topic" means, they're going to do whatever they can to say you're off-topic so they can break your filibuster. Thus I'd rather there were no restrictions on what you can talk about.

[JackSlack]

I don't know. Even demanding the filibuster actually be a filibuster creates this nasty scenario where the filibustering party can just leave, sleep, let their filibustering compatriot be the only one to tough it out; while over on the other side, they need to ALL sit and wait.

Seriously, I'm just all for tossing the filibuster entirely. Elections have consequences. The minority shouldn't get an effective veto.

[Lord Hosk]

The thing is that the filibuster is only in the senate, the senate is supposed to be elder statesmen who are "above petty politics" thats why they were originally not elected by the people, but appointed by the state government. They could ride out the winds of change by being a staunch representative of the people, thinking about things in a longer sense without fear of being voted in or out. Now they just have longer to hum and haw between elections.

The entire US government was set up to protect the minority because of the way the British system was able to overlook it. The colonists fought for "no taxation without representation" but the when we sent delegates to plead with the crown they were explicitly told, do not accept a deal where we get seats in parliament for we will surely be outvoted and ignored.

A short break down of the branches of government,

The Congress itself with two branches, the peoples branch with many members and the statesman branch with fewer members, the people branch could pass all sorts of laws based on the whim of the people one of the fears was that 35 crazy farmers could get themselves elected and run the whole thing. So they put the stop gap of people with 26 men who cared not what was in the winds but could instead think big and steady the rabble.

The Supreme Court with its 6 wise men could evaluate the laws and throw them out as against the constitution if they see fit.

The Presidency, one man appointed by electors who appointed by the state legislatures who were in some cases elected in some cases appointed with the power to say yes or no to all laws.

The whole government is about the minority having the veto. There was nothing the founding fathers feared more than the general population of These United States getting riled up and making choices for themselves.

[Tycherin]

The whole government is about the minority having the veto. There was nothing the founding fathers feared more than the general population of These United States getting riled up and making choices for themselves.

To be fair, there is one thing they feared more, and that was a king. The three-part structure of the government with checks and balances is designed first and foremost to prevent centralization of power in the hands of a single person or group. The "tyranny of the majority" protections, the sort of thing you're describing, were their second priority. In many areas those two goals overlap, though, because the one of best ways to prevent a tyrant is to give veto power to the minority.

That said, it's been a long time since the United States government even resembled the plan the founding fathers had in mind. It doesn't matter where you put the split - the national bank, the establishment of judicial review, abuse of the elastic clause - by this point we're thoroughly "off the rails."

[JayBlanc]

The entire US government was set up to protect the minority because of the way the British system was able to overlook it. The colonists fought for "no taxation without representation" but the when we sent delegates to plead with the crown they were explicitly told, do not accept a deal where we get seats in parliament for we will surely be outvoted and ignored.

Okay, again I'm going to have to step in here...

Once more, this simply isn't true. The US Government was not "set up" to be like this. It evolved over hundreds of years of revision of House and Senate rules. The US Constitution clearly does not give any additional power to a 'minority political party', and in fact political parties were not recognised at all. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison explicitly wrote that they did not want to see political parties form in the United States. They only managed to keep it that way for six years before the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties formed, but it certainly was not their intent to cement in filibuster powers for a minority party in the senate.

The current methods by which a minority party can deadlock the senate date back, not to the Founding Fathers, but to 1975's revision of the cloture rules and introduction of the 'virtual filibuster'. And again, the 'Hastert Rule' that is allowing a minority of Republicans prevent an straight vote on a clean budget bill without adding wrecking amendments dates back to 1995 and Newt Gingrich!

I have complete confidence that "The Founding Fathers" would scream blue murder at anyone who suggested it was their idea that the government could grind to a halt, and a default on the nation's debt be threatened, because of a minority of opposition in congress.

[empath]

[Lord Hosk]

I just got a letter if the shut down last past the 14th my, and 4 million other veterans will be without disability payments, housing payments, school payments or pensions.

And if it lasts beyond the end of the month Vets will start to lose health coverage.

SO, Starship troopers here we come (the one written by Robert A. Heinlein, not the one staring Casper Van Dien, and Neil Patrick Harris).

[Metcarfre]

Mini-nukes and hyper-militarism for everyone!

In truth, this article in the Economist really drives the point home about how insane this whole thing is. All those quips about Republicans "negotiating" to "only" burn down a kitchen after threatening to burn down the whole house? Entirely apt.

[PlasmaCow]

... because NASA doesn't contribute directly to funding the health and welfare of our elders? If NASA goes down for a week, nobody's going to die.

There are 6 people 420km up that might disagree with you there...

[Ptangmatik]

I've just realised: Once the GOP stops having their hissy fit and Obamacare gets to be the standard, Obama's going to have his name on something that'll save hundreds of millions of lives.

I mean, imagine if our British NHS was called 'Bevancare'. Aneurin Bevan's name would be placed on a par with people like Florence Nightingale and he'd be better remembered for centuries.

Maybe the Republicans have figured THAT out?

[Metcarfre]

... because NASA doesn't contribute directly to funding the health and welfare of our elders? If NASA goes down for a week, nobody's going to die.

There are 6 people 420km up that might disagree with you there...

ISS operations are one of the few NASA elements considered essential and are still supported.