I have read that the 1995 shutdown occurred in a somewhat different fiscal environment in terms of what operations of government were still funded and operational in the absence of a budget or continuing resolution. Can anyone expand on this? Is this shutdown supposed to be more complete, in some sense, than 1995?
As I have posted elsewhere here,IMHO this is a major flaw in the US Constitution. The previous English Administrative Law on which it was based had a sharing of powers between Lords, Commons and the Executive and Judiciary. If any dispute arose over supply (money to run the Government) there was an answer available- dissolve the lower house and call an election- the people decide (at least those allowed to vote) and supply is given to the executive that results. In the US it is necessary to wait up to two years before the House is re-elected, meaning the election is not necessarily about supply.
After the last shutdown, my recollection is that all federal employees received back pay for the period, not just those who were required to work. That will be up to Congress, but whatever agreement eventually ends the shutdown (if there is one) could provide for retroactive pay this time as well.
One significant difference with this pending shutdown than what occurred in 1995 is this time part of Congress is attaching numerous non-revenue riders to the spending bill and insisting upon passing it all intact or nothing approach. It is more than just defund Obamacare as part of the bill.
Just so everyone can sleep well tonight, Congresscritters will still get paid during a shut down. So at least we don’t have to worry about those guys.
No, we didn’t.
The world’s smallest nit is officially picked. Congratulations.
Wait a minute… Isn’t the back pay which must eventually be paid to federal employees a form of debt? How does that debt get around the debt ceiling?
We’re not due to hit the debt ceiling for a few weeks, so it’s not an issue, yet.
A furloughed federal employee is in a non-paid status. Their is no legal obligation to pay furloughed employees. After the 1995-96 government shutdown, Congress decided to pay (retroactively) furloughed federal employees as a goodwill gesture. Congress had no legal obligation to do so then, or now. The current political climate is nothing like 1995-96. It’s much, much worse.
ETA …
Federal employees who are designated as excepted, and instructed to work during a government shutdown will be paid, but only after a budget is passed.
The debt referenced in the Constitution is only the money we borrow from others by selling financial instruments; it does not mean the contractual obligation to pay funds to someone. Once there is an appropriation AND money in the Treasury, the government is contractually obligated to make good on those payments. It cannot spend money it doesn’t have.
Best I understand some legislation the President twice ran on, that Congress voted through, and that the Supreme Court upheld is opposed by a bunch of politicians whose campaigns and lifestyles are meaningfully supported, directly or indirectly, by vested interests opposed the legislation the President twice ran on, that Congress voted through, and that the Supreme Court upheld.
The short answer is a bunch of elected representatives don’t give a flying fuck for democratic process when it hurts their pocket.
Usually, that does happen. But because of the idiocy of having the President elected separately from Congress, and the impossibility of early elections, compromise doesn’t have to happen.
The debt ceiling issue, coming up in a few weeks, is far more important than giving half our federal workers an unearned vacation. There’s some feeling that the GOP standing up to Obama on the less important issue – the government stoppage – will provide some cover for when they give in on the more important issue – the debt ceiling.
Tomorrow (already today in the UK) is a fine day for you to be proud of the British constitution.
Maybe I don’t understand this correctly, but why would you have to pass a budget on Obamacare when Obamacare itself already passed? And wouldn’t the republicans have every right not to vote for a budget that neither they nor their constituents support? I agree completely that’s it’s more than a little bullshit that you need agreement from both houses of congress and the president at two different occasions years apart to pass a law, but isn’t this a legitimate legislative path?
They already voted on the Obamacare budget four years ago. What they are voting on now is a continuing resolution that allows the government to remain open until the 2013 budget is finished. They don’t like Obamacare, but they don’t have the votes to repeal it the way the Constitution prescribes, so they are attaching an amendment defunding Obamacare to the continuing resolution, so the government can’t stay open without defunding Obamacare.
They question of whether that is a legitimate path of legislation is a topic for GD.
this is absolutely amazing news. still sifting through the newspapers to get more info.
I think Americans will soon forget this come election time. What they won’t forget is how this inefficient boondoggle of a healthcare system has been implemented. I honestly think a Republican has the best chance at the WH if they will keeping beating the drums to do repeal it. I’m somebody that never voted Republican ever, but will this time if they will do just that.
Warren Buffet who actually was behind Obama on backing higher taxes on the rich and an early Obama supporter is saying we need to scrap Obamacare and start over. It’s the average citizen he says that is going to be hurt the most. He says we need a plan that attacks the costs first, then worry about expanding the coverage.
warren buffet is not exactly your average citizen mate. sure he donates millions but still…commenting on the avergae citizen is he really in touch?
and what has this shutdown got to do with china as all is blocked here. total shutdown unless through a vpn. bizzare.
what is going on?