# A "Clean" Federal Funding Bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082 "2016-09-27T22:07:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/1 "2016-09-27T22:07:36Z")
Over the past few years there were several attempts by the Republicans to get legislative priorities passed by attaching them to federal funding bills, threatening to shut down the government unless their legislation was attached to it. At those times, the line pushed by liberals/Democrats - both in and out of government, including this board - was that this was unconscionable, and that the government had a responsibility to fund itself, and that there needed to be a “clean” funding bill with no partisan legislation attached. At this time, ISTM that the shoe is on the other foot. From the WP: [Government shutdown looms due to partisan clash over Flint aid](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/27/will-democrats-force-a-federal-shutdown-over-flint-relief-funds/) > [@](#): > > The Senate blocked progress Tuesday on a bill that would keep the government fully operating past midnight Friday, led by Democrats who are vowing not to support any spending extension until Congress guarantees federal funding to address the drinking-water crisis in Flint, Mich. > [@](#): > > Democrats prefer the aid be attached to the stopgap spending bill, known as a continuing resolution or CR, because it is a must-pass bill that is guaranteed to become law. Even if the water-projects bill passes the House this week, the two chambers will have to resolve differences between the two bills, and there is no guarantee the final product — which might not emerge until November or December — will include Flint aid. Do all those who excoriated the Republicans over this tactic feel similarly about the Democrats engaging in it? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/2 "2016-09-27T22:12:10Z")
Anyone who thinks aid to a city that was poisoned by its own state government is an unnecessary pork barrel expenditure needs to take an ethics class. Whether that’s a politician who will be voting that up or down or just a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/3 "2016-09-27T22:13:53Z")
, ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/4 "2016-09-27T22:16:26Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Anyone who thinks aid to a city that was poisoned by its own state government is an unnecessary pork barrel expenditure needs to take an ethics class. Whether that’s a politician who will be voting that up or down or just a citizen. Its not, but still- attaching extraneous stuff to a bill is wrong. Keep to the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/5 "2016-09-28T02:20:18Z")
I thought federal aid was already sent? Now I’m confused. Gotta check the old news… ---
**Author:** ![TheSeaOtter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ed655f/32.png) [@TheSeaOtter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSeaOtter)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/6 "2016-09-28T03:43:52Z")
According to the [Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/congress-funding-bill-mcconnell.html): > [@](#): > > Unlike past showdowns over national issues like the new health care law or immigration policy, this shutdown conflict is more parochial, centered on Democratic demands for help for Flint, Mich. with its lead-contaminated water, and flood relief for Louisiana and a handful of other states. > > Democrats say they won’t support a bill that includes the latter without the former, as Mr. McConnell’s proposal did. And they note that Louisiana, which would be a chief beneficiary, is represented by two Republican senators while Michigan has two Democrats. So, yeah - the Democrats are insisting that if the CR is going to include disaster relief, it should include some for the place represented by them, too. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/7 "2016-09-28T04:35:03Z")
I’m not saying it’s right. But how long were the Democrats expected to put up with the Republicans doing this before they did it back at them? Maybe now both sides will agree to pass clean bills. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/8 "2016-09-28T11:55:33Z")
The Democrats’ version of a clean bill is one that does not have riders to kill Planned Parenthood or the ACA, in other words Democrats object to bills that hurt people. The Republicans’ version of a clean bill is one that doesn’t have riders to provide aid to people poisoned by water or devastated by nature. In other words, Republicans object to bills that help people. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/9 "2016-09-28T12:57:27Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > At this time, ISTM that the shoe is on the other foot. From the WP: [Government shutdown looms due to partisan clash over Flint aid](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/27/will-democrats-force-a-federal-shutdown-over-flint-relief-funds/)Do all those who excoriated the Republicans over this tactic feel similarly about the Democrats engaging in it? Do you have any particular thoughts on a provision in the spending bill authored by Republicans that prevents the Securities and Exchange Commission from drafting regulations that would require corporations to disclose political activity, such as campaign fundraising? And how Senator McConnell does not support a bill to keep government operating unless this provision is in there? [http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/297718-mcconnell-threatens-shutdown-to-keep-corporate-political-spending](http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/297718-mcconnell-threatens-shutdown-to-keep-corporate-political-spending) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/10 "2016-09-28T13:53:12Z")
IOKIADDI is a fundamental principle of political debate on the SDMB. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/11 "2016-09-28T13:53:40Z")
I would be in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring bills to be single-subject. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/12 "2016-09-28T13:58:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I would be in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring bills to be single-subject. You think we have gridlock now? Compromise is the only way anything gets done. Admittedly, compromise is in short supply at the moment, but get rid of the ability to do “OK, we’ll give you something you want, but you’ve got to give us something we want, too,” and no bills will pass at all. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/13 "2016-09-28T14:08:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IOKIADDI is a fundamental principle of political debate on the SDMB. So in your opinion, pushing for Flint aid is not okay? But is pushing for the SEC rider okay? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/14 "2016-09-28T14:13:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Over the past few years there were several attempts by the Republicans to get legislative priorities passed by attaching them to federal funding bills, threatening to shut down the government unless their legislation was attached to it. At those times, the line pushed by liberals/Democrats - both in and out of government, including this board - was that this was unconscionable, and that the government had a responsibility to fund itself, and that there needed to be a “clean” funding bill with no partisan legislation attached. > > At this time, ISTM that the shoe is on the other foot. From the WP: [Government shutdown looms due to partisan clash over Flint aid](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/27/will-democrats-force-a-federal-shutdown-over-flint-relief-funds/)Do all those who excoriated the Republicans over this tactic feel similarly about the Democrats engaging in it? As has been pointed out, the bill isn’t clean already because of Republican riders attached to it. Is there a reason you forgot to mention this? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/15 "2016-09-28T14:15:57Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > You think we have gridlock now? Compromise is the only way anything gets done. Admittedly, compromise is in short supply at the moment, but get rid of the ability to do “OK, we’ll give you something you want, but you’ve got to give us something we want, too,” and no bills will pass at all. It works in state legislatures. And you can still trade horses _between_ bills. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/16 "2016-09-28T14:34:06Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The Democrats’ version of a clean bill is one that does not have riders to kill Planned Parenthood or the ACA, in other words Democrats object to bills that hurt people. > > The Republicans’ version of a clean bill is one that doesn’t have riders to provide aid to people poisoned by water or devastated by nature. In other words, Republicans object to bills that help people. This is the core of the problem. And tis is part of a broader attitude that applies to a lot more than this one issue. The fact is that there are a lot of Republicans/conservatives around. They have different opinions than you on what’s a good idea and what’s not. If you have a principle that certain tactics are OK for you because your ideals are so righteous and not OK for the other guys because their beliefs are so slimy, then that’s effectively the same thing as endorsing those tactics as a matter of principle. [As above, this is a broader issue. It comes up a lot in the context of personal insults. Ours are OK because they’re true, but theirs are not because they’re false. And so on.] > [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you have any particular thoughts on a provision in the spending bill authored by Republicans that prevents the Securities and Exchange Commission from drafting regulations that would require corporations to disclose political activity, such as campaign fundraising? And how Senator McConnell does not support a bill to keep government operating unless this provision is in there? > > [http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/297718-mcconnell-threatens-shutdown-to-keep-corporate-political-spending](http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/297718-mcconnell-threatens-shutdown-to-keep-corporate-political-spending) Can you cite something that’s not written by an activist? All the coverage I’ve seen in the mainstream media only mention the Flint issue as the sticking point. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > As has been pointed out, the bill isn’t clean already because of Republican riders attached to it. Is there a reason you forgot to mention this? It wasn’t in the articles that I read about it. Can you clarify what you’re talking about or were you just leaping at the opportunity to say something snarky? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/17 "2016-09-28T14:40:30Z")
Here’s [CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-blocks-spending-bill-from-advancing-days-before-shutdown-deadline/) on the SEC funding issue. Unsurprisingly, a bit different than the activist cited by Ravenman. > [@](#): > > They have also complained about other “partisan policy riders” like one on Securities and Exchange Commission political disclosures. It prohibits the SEC from requiring public companies to disclose political spending and **Congress actually passed the provision in the government spending package last December. Democrats want to include language in the CR that would strip it out**. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/18 "2016-09-28T14:47:20Z")
What do you understand the bolded language to mean? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/19 "2016-09-28T14:49:31Z")
That the Republican provision is currently the law based on having been included in the prior bill, and the Democrats are looking to change that. Do you interpret it otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082/20 "2016-09-28T14:50:22Z")
**FP** – maybe I’m not understanding your point in this thread. I see several options of what you’re trying to argue, but I’m not clear which points I may be inferring and which you may be trying to make: 1. Are you saying that temporary funding bills ought to be clean and as free as possible from policy positions? (Which is why I raise the SEC rider.) 2. Are you saying that neither party should threaten to vote against a funding bill? 3. Are you saying that because Republicans shut down government in 2013 over an attempt to defund Obamacare, that Democrats should not seek to influence spending legislation? 4. Are you saying that Democrats pushing for spending for Flint in a spending bill is basically the same thing as Republicans pushing to not spend money for Obamacare without actually being able to repeal the law? 5. Are you saying that threats not to vote for a spending bill unless there is a compromise is basically the same as actually shutting down the government? 6. Something else I’m not understanding? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-clean-federal-funding-bill/767082.md?page=2)