Yes. The prior rider didn’t create ongoing law. It prevented the funds being appropriated for that year from being used to enforce the proposed rule. It has no effect on the funds being appropriated in the new resolution; the GOP is trying to pass it again because the last one is no longer effective.
Didn’t bother the Republicans with ACTUALLY shutting down the government Obamacare. Obamacare was law, Republicans tried to change that, government shut down. Now I can’t figure out if you have a principled position on this issue at all – see the above questions.
If that’s so, then why would the Democrats need to “include language in the CR that would strip it out”? Why the need for new language?
I can live with funding bills being used as leverage or not. The way horse-trading works in legislatures is somewhat arbitrary, and whatever is accepted by both sides is fine with me.
What I do object to is making a principle out of something when it benefits you and casting is aside when it doesn’t.
Because the underlying bill is written so as to re-authorize the prior prohibition on the SEC. The bill is here. The operative language is:
The language “stripping it out” would make an exception to the renewal in section 102.
Point taken. Thank you.
Okay – not trying to be dense, but I’m still missing something. The minority party in Congress is saying, “We want something (aid to Flint) before we’re going to vote for this bill,” and Republicans for various reasons don’t like the substance of this public works project. Efforts continue to work something out, and it sounds like there’s a deal within reach right now, and the odds of a shutdown appear to be very low at the moment.
In the case I believe you’re trying to criticize, a portion of the majority party in Congress was saying, “We’re not going to vote for the bill unless it includes something (defunding Obamacare),” and Democrats criticized Republicans for this position when government actually ended up closing for about two weeks.
If you’re generally okay with horse-trading, I’m not sure why you think scenario 1 is so much like scenario 2.
You’re welcome. Both CBS and the Hill editorial could have done a better job of explaining it.
They seem identical to me.
Identical? Is the fact that government actually shut down three years ago, and will not shut down this year, some kind of trifling nuance?
Depends for what.
If we’re discussing the issue of what tactics are appropriate, then it makes no difference. Unless you’re asserting that the Democrats were just bluffing and wouldn’t actually shut down the government if they didn’t get their way.
[Also, this issue has come up a lot in cases where the Republicans were similarly threatening to shut down the government and eventually made some sort of compromise.]
Just to pin you down, it’s okay for either party to negotiate what is in a spending bill so long as they have the understanding that everyone should support the bill regardless of the outcome of the negotiations?
As you can tell, I’m less interested in the topic of pointing fingers at one party or another for not being fair, as opposed to establishing the general principles of what you think is fair.
There’s no such thing. You can’t “negotiate what is in a spending bill” if you also make clear that you will “support the bill regardless of the outcome of the negotiations”. The only leverage you have in negotiations is the threat that you won’t support the bill.
I don’t know what your point was here.
Perhaps this thread was not directed to you.
Did you happen to have a position about “the general principles” back when the Republicans were threatening to shut down the government? If so, what was it?
I agree it is nonsensical, but it was my attempt to understand what you think is wrong. I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that your entire point has nothing to do with what constitutes fair negotiations with respect to a spending bill, and everything about trying to root out perceived hipocrisy when you can’t even clearly establish any harm or actual poor conduct.
i thought Ted Cruz was a nut for instigating an actual government shutdown over an issue that literally everyone knew he would never win. We shouldn’t shut down government for a temper tantrum.
It sounds like you’re angling for the “we can do it but they can’t” position, since the definition of “temper tantrum” is so subjective.
As above, that’s not a workable position as a practical matter, since the other side thinks your positions are temper tantrums. As a practical matter, that means everyone agrees that you can shut down the government over what you personally consider important priorities (i.e. your own positions) and you can’t shut it down over “temper tantrums” (i.e. the other side’s positions). So as long as there exists disagreements over what the important issues of the day are and which side is correct as to those, everyone agrees - assuming they accept your “general principles” - that shutting down the government is AOK.
Considering the outcome (the government was kept open, with funding for zika and Flint included), I think the answer to the OP’s question, for me, at least, is “holding out for positive legislation without actually shutting down the government is fine and good”.
That’s like saying “playing a game of chicken is great when you win”.
If they’re bluffing, I don’t have a problem with the tactic.
The last several posts I’ve addressed to you have been very clear that I’m trying to steer this debate away from finger-pointing and toward a discussion of when we should reject shutdown threats by either party. And yet, in each of your responses, you attempt to steer the discussion right back into finger-pointing. You said a moment ago that if I don’t want to talk about finger-pointing, maybe this thread isn’t for me. Now you say that I have a secret finger-pointing position?
This is starting to look like a Donald Trump debating tactic: “You say I’m pointing fingers? Well, YOU are pointing BIGGER fingers!!”
I disagree. Let’s compare two examples once again: when Republicans shut down government to repeal ACA, even Republicans knew it was a stupid move. The House leadership even refused to schedule a vote on a bill to end the shutdown that also stripped the ACA provision because they knew it would pass. The shutdown could have lasted a day, but they chose to extend it for two weeks. That was a pure temper trantrum generated by Ted Cruz.
Contrast that to the Flont provision. It got worked out with two days to spare before a shutdown could have happened. How is that a temper tantrum, when a reasonable deal was cut?
You have done a terrible job making the case that there is even a reasonable premise for debate in this thread. The whole concept seems to be, “Isn’t it true that Democrats are hipocrites - discuss how they are!”
That’s pretty much it. I’m going with what you say. I can’t help it if you dance around.
Ted Cruz thought he could pull it off. The rest of the Republicans caved, though.
Main reason it worked is because both Democrats and Republicans knew that the Republicans would take a hit if the government shut down. Partially because the Republicans are more associated with shutdowns in the mind of the public, partially because the public tends to blame “congress” for things like this which results in them voting out the incumbents and this favors the Democrats at this particular time.
But the point is the same. The Democrats would have shut the government down if they didn’t get what they wanted. The only difference between them and the Republicans is that they knew they would profit from it politically, while the Republicans knew they wouldn’t. But as to the propriety of shutting down the government, it’s the exact same principle.
If the Democrats actually intended to go as far as shutting the government down, then that’s different than if they were just using this as a negotiating tactic.