How can Democrats justify keeping DC closed?

[Richard_Parker]

@Martin_Hyde

If you believe D.C. has any political relevance to the GOP, you’d be the first person I know to ever claim that.

I’m glad I could be the first.

You’re overlooking at least three things. First, a whole lot of people who rely on DC municipal services live and vote in Virginia, and indeed live and vote in places across the country. Second, the symbolism of DC being closed down is itself important to the strategy. And third, and probably more importantly, political power includes a lot of things other than voting. It involves lobbying, and messaging, and fundraising, and many other things that–as it turns out–are done disproportionately by people who live in Washington D.C. If you don’t think it matters to piss off, say, the lawyers who your corporation constituents hire to lobby you, then you don’t understand the way power works in Washington.

[Martin_Hyde]

@XT

I think you are missing the point. The thinking here, afaik, is that this would be a potential wedge issue, allowing for a partial solution that would push back (potentially) a full resolution of the problem, which is what the Democrats are obviously trying to avoid while boxing in the Republicans and making it an all or nothing proposition. It’s not that anyone thinks that this is about DC, per se, but that there are broader issues at play here.

No one has provided a compelling argument for that. The Republicans don’t care if D.C. is running or not. It’s head-scratch inducing that they don’t view letting the local government of D.C. spend its tax revenue as a gift. It’s a pure gain for the Democrats that in no way hurts their position in the broader shutdown debate. It doesn’t help them to keep D.C. closed either–to be honest, like I said D.C. is politically irrelevant. Democrats do not care about it because their support in D.C. is a foregone conclusion, Republicans don’t care about it because they know D.C. will never be a place where there are very many Republicans. It’s strange the Democrats want to include such an irrelevancy in the larger shutdown, when all it does is mean denying local services to some 600,000+ people.

I should again note: unlike all the services the entire country loses from the partial shutdown, once D.C.'s emergency fund is used up the residents of D.C. won’t have any local services. The rest of the country still has State and Local services. D.C. is not equivalent to any other place, and it’s strange Democrats are the ones insisting it be considered the same when it serves no greater interest on their side.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Ravenman

Martin: I did explain it. You just don’t like it, so if you want to take your ball and run away from the thread you started, I can’t stop you.

Again: No you haven’t. You said something stupid: “I’d rather the EPA be back open than local schools reopen.” Those two things aren’t related at all. The shutdown will not last one second longer if the Senate agrees to the House bill to let D.C. spend its own tax revenue.

Is a law required for the DC government to operate? Yes.

Do I think that’s stupid? Yep.

Do I acknowledge the law is the law? Yes.

Would I support a stand-alone funding bill for the EPA? No.

Would I support a stand-alone funding bill for my other favorite Federal agencies? No.

Why should CIS be allowed to spend its fee revenue but D.C. not be allowed to spend its tax revenue?

Why do I think that the Senate should not pass stand-alone funding bills for particular agencies, office, or whatever? Because there are many other offices, agencies and departments that Republicans seek to eliminate and they will never propose a bill to fund those important functions. It’s hang together, or hang separately.

DC isn’t part of any of those other things. It’s a local government.

Why are Republicans proposing to fund DC? I’m not sure, but my best guess right now is that they don’t want to have the embarrassing photo-op of DC residents taking their trash to dump in front of Boehner’s house. The Republican strategy is clearly to continue the shutdown for as long as possible by addressing all the small problems of a government shutdown without taking responsibility for the big picture that they are making the government worse.

The biggest mistake I think the Democrats are making during this shutdown is assuming local outrages like that are going to have much effect on the Republicans. The biggest difference between this shutdown and the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown is most of the Republicans driving this thing are never going to lose reelection, so they don’t have to fear all the negative stuff that mostly only gets play in districts Republicans were going to lose anyway.

[Martin_Hyde]

Further, if you actually follow my OP, this isn’t strictly about DC. It’s about something that doesn’t make sense. If the Democrats were 100% “we won’t pass a single bit of legislation no matter what, no matter how much sense it makes, until the shutdown is over” okay, that’s fine. But that’s not their position, the Democrats position is “we’ll pass special legislation to make sure the military [a clearly Federal entity] continues to get paid, but we won’t pass legislation that lets D.C. spend its own tax revenue [a local entity not comparable to the rest of the Federal agencies shut down.]”

[Punoqllads]

Democrats in the Senate have tried 19 times since April 23rd to pass continuing resolutions. Each time, a Republican shot them down. Cite.

[monstro]

It’s clear to me why Republicans “care” about DC. A dysfunctional nation capital signals to everyone just how screwed up that country is. But uprighting DC woud give the appearance that everything’s a-ok.

The Republicans essentially want to do photo-ops with a couple of well-fed, well-groomed hostages so as to hide the fact that they are indeed holding us all hostage. TWhy wouldn’t the Democrats not want to give them this opportunity?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

The answer is that allowing piecemeal reopening, whether it is DC or the EPA, makes reopening the entire government less likely to happen quickly. It’s just that simple.

The reason they passed the pay for troops is political. They didn’t think they could say no for political reasons. They do think they can say no to virtually every other piecemeal effort, because most people understand the logic.

It doesn’t matter that DC has its own tax base and is a separately-administered political unit, because that has nothing to do with the goals of the no-piecemeal-opening strategy.

What you’re saying about the rationale of the Democrats is undoubtedly correct. Or, a bit more bluntly, “I’m on your side, don’t screw it up, okay? Don’t screw it up”.

Question I have is whether there is anything fundamentally different in the Republicans refusing to fund the entire budget unless it includes ACA or the Democrats refusing to fund any of it unless it includes the ACA in unchanged form. ISTM that both sides are playing the same game - holding largely unrelated matters hostage to their issues.

[Martin_Hyde]

@monstro

It’s clear to me why Republicans “care” about DC. A dysfunctional nation capital signals to everyone just how screwed up that country is. But uprighting DC woud give the appearance that everything’s a-ok.

The Republicans essentially want to do photo-ops with a couple of well-fed, well-groomed hostages so as to hide the fact that they are indeed holding us all hostage. TWhy wouldn’t the Democrats not want to give them this opportunity?

Again, the biggest mistake Democrats are making is assuming Republicans are running off of the bicoastal/national media spin on things. Republicans report to voters in the suburbs of big cities or in rural areas. Those people don’t care what goes on in D.C. Or, they’re like me and recognize D.C. is a shit hole full of welfare cases and effete yuppies with horrible education and city government and they think it deserves every bad thing that happens to it [which it does.]

[Czarcasm]

“We’re going to hold the whole damn country hostage until you give us what we want. By the way, would you mind signing off on a couple payment authorizations that will make the Republicans look like they care for the common man?”

Never let it be said Republicans don’t have balls.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What you’re saying about the rationale of the Democrats is undoubtedly correct. Or, a bit more bluntly, “I’m on your side, don’t screw it up, okay? Don’t screw it up”.

Question I have is whether there is anything fundamentally different in the Republicans refusing to fund the entire budget unless it includes ACA or the Democrats refusing to fund any of it unless it includes the ACA in unchanged form. ISTM that both sides are playing the same game - holding largely unrelated matters hostage to their issues.

The Republicans didn’t push for defunding of the ACA since before the shutdown. On the Sunday before the shutdown the House passed a CR that delayed the individual mandate, but did nothing to defund the ACA. Now the House has shifted entirely to a debate about the budget and the deficit. Continual mentioning of the ACA is an absolute non sequitur.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Czarcasm

“We’re going to hold the whole damn country hostage until you give us what we want. By the way, would you mind signing off on a couple payment authorizations that will make the Republicans look like they care for the common man?”

Never let it be said Republicans don’t have balls.

And that’s what I get, that’s why the Democrats are smart not to open one or two Federal agency here or there. The Republicans tried to let the national parks reopen for example, and tactically, it was smart for the Democrats to say no. The national parks being closed genuinely pisses off Republican voters.

But this logic does not extend to D.C. If you show a bunch of pictures of D.C. school kids not going to school or other random stuff, Republicans like me are going to say:

1. Those kids were lost causes anyway, they don’t need school. They’re just going to join a gang or work at McDonald’s and have 12 kids and live on SNAP benefits and disability the rest of their life.

2. Even if they weren’t, being in D.C. public schools isn’t really much better than sitting at home doing nothing.

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Question I have is whether there is anything fundamentally different in the Republicans refusing to fund the entire budget unless it includes ACA or the Democrats refusing to fund any of it unless it includes the ACA in unchanged form. ISTM that both sides are playing the same game - holding largely unrelated matters hostage to their issues.

That’s a question hashed out in a dozen of these threads. I think the most succinct argument in response is that some demands are just objectively unreasonable in one direction and not the other. Demanding a defunding of Obamacare in order to fund the rest of government just isn’t symmetrical to demanding that it be funded. It would be a move that actively harms people for malicious political purposes, as a defunded Obamacare is worse than no Obamacare at all. It is a demand that the keystone of Obama’s first term be reversed by a party that couldn’t take the Senate or the Presidency or win a majority of national votes for the House. And it would violate our custom that we don’t repeal laws by having one chamber refuse to fund their enforcement.

[Ca3799]

I don’t think anything should be opened; not the parks, not the vets, not the EPA, CDC, NASA. If there is a shut down, let stuff be closed.

We will see how DC is faring next week once the money runs out. Fire, police, trash, water… According to Republicans, government is bad. Republicans wanted this disaster; have begged for it, in fact.

Let it run its course.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

It is a demand that the keystone of Obama’s first term be reversed by a party that couldn’t take the Senate or the Presidency or win a majority of national votes for the House.

I think that argument would be a better one if the Democrats were willing to compromise about it and the Republicans were not. As it is it’s the other way around, and the Republicans are asking for some influence based on their control of one chamber and the Democrats are saying they get nothing and like it.

And it would violate our custom that we don’t repeal laws by having one chamber refuse to fund their enforcement.

These “customs” are being violated on a regular basis, as government evolves. At the time the ACA passed, there had never been a bill of that scale passed by “reconciliation” either but that didn’t stop the Democrats from getting what they wanted.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Ca3799

I don’t think anything should be opened; not the parks, not the vets, not the EPA, CDC, NASA. If there is a shut down, let stuff be closed.

We will see how DC is faring next week once the money runs out. Fire, police, trash, water… According to Republicans, government is bad. Republicans wanted this disaster; have begged for it, in fact.

Let it run its course.

I guess this is the level of thought of the average Democratic voter. Oh well, says I. The only answer I’m getting out of this thread is “even though opening D.C. doesn’t open a single Federal agency shuttered by the shutdown and does not affect the shutdown negotiations at all, and even though we’ve already funded military paychecks anyway which are totally Federal, we are throwing logic to the wind and will refuse to let D.C. use its own tax dollars because we think that’s going to make the congressman from the Cincinnati suburbs feel like he needs to end the shutdown sooner.”

[Ravenman]

@Martin_Hyde

The Republicans don’t care if D.C. is running or not. It’s head-scratch inducing that they don’t view letting the local government of D.C. spend its tax revenue as a gift.

Obviously, Republicans do care if DC is running. They proposed a special bill to allow it. So you’re wrong there; the only question is why Republicans support keeping DC open.

@Martin_Hyde

Again: No you haven’t. You said something stupid: “I’d rather the EPA be back open than local schools reopen.” Those two things aren’t related at all. The shutdown will not last one second longer if the Senate agrees to the House bill to let D.C. spend its own tax revenue.

I’ve explained it a couple times already. Republicans want to pick and choose which government operations get money. Once they get through whatever list they have of their favored government operations that get to receive short-term funding, they’ll stop and leave tons of other Federally-funded operations out in the cold.

Congress should not pick and choose a handful of government operations to keep open, just to leave others high and dry. DC should not get special treatment, just like the National Parks shouldn’t get special treatment, just like FEMA shouldn’t get special treatment. Because the inevitable result is that tons of other Federal functions will be screwed, and that’s unfair.

You, in your own arguments, have already demonstrated why this is true. You point out that Congress has passed a special bill for DoD, why not pass a special bill for DC? If we pass a special bill for DC, why not one for the parks? If we pass one for the parks, how about for one-eyed homeless war heroes? But nobody is proposing a bill to reopen the Department of Transportation: why not? Because the whole strategy is to provide special treatment for some and leave others fucked.

Well, count me out of this conservative “I’ve got mine, jack” strategy. I live in DC, and I’m going to stand in solidarity with the people who receive services from those countless other agencies who will be screwed by the Republican peicemeal plan. I’m not going to agree to special treatment to keep my city running if others Federal functions are not going to be taken care of, too.

Why should CIS be allowed to spend its fee revenue but D.C. not be allowed to spend its tax revenue?

Why should military golf courses be open for business while the people at the Department of the Treasury who enforce sanctions against Iran and Syria are gutted by furloughs? Why do members of Congress who make $175k a year get paid, while the GS-5 janitors who vacuum their offices are home without pay? I can tell you the legal explanations of why it is that way, but don’t ask me to defend the principles. I think all those examples are unfair, and actually are the best argument for reopening all of government.

If people can still go get their passports renewed during a shutdown, every other government function of equal or greater importance should be open, too – regardless of the funding mechanism.

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I think that argument would be a better one if the Democrats were willing to compromise about it and the Republicans were not. As it is it’s the other way around, and the Republicans are asking for some influence based on their control of one chamber and the Democrats are saying they get nothing and like it.

I don’t agree with that characterization. The baseline here is a continuing resolution set at Republican spending priorities. If Republicans are “getting nothing” then so are Democrats. If anything, Republicans are getting something and Democrats are getting nothing.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

These “customs” are being violated on a regular basis, as government evolves. At the time the ACA passed, there had never been a bill of that scale passed by “reconciliation” either but that didn’t stop the Democrats from getting what they wanted.

All three of Bush’s tax cuts, which were the centerpiece of his domestic legislative agenda, were passed through reconciliation. Which is a reaction to breaking customs surrounding the filibuster, and on and on.

But the point is this: is it a good or bad custom that we don’t allow one chamber to effectively repeal a law by refusing to fund it? If it’s a good custom, we should keep it and be alarmed by this tactic. If it’s a bad custom, then obviously we shouldn’t care if it is violated.

ETA: and let’s not forget that the bill was passed without reconciliation by the Senate. Reconciliation had to be used to get rid of the Cornhusker kickback, etc., not to pass the main bill.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Ravenman

Obviously, Republicans do care if DC is running. They proposed a special bill to allow it. So you’re wrong there; the only question is why Republicans support keeping DC open.

Legislation isn’t proof of caring about something.

I’ve explained it a couple times already. Republicans want to pick and choose which government operations get money. Once they get through whatever list they have of their favored government operations that get to receive short-term funding, they’ll stop and leave tons of other Federally-funded operations out in the cold.

And none of these arguments apply to D.C., which isn’t one of the Federal agencies/departments you go on to rattle off.

[bobot]

@Czarcasm

“We’re going to hold the whole damn country hostage until you give us what we want. By the way, would you mind signing off on a couple payment authorizations that will make the Republicans look like they care for the common man?”

Never let it be said Republicans don’t have balls.

It bears repeating. Well said.

[Punoqllads]

@Ravenman

Why do members of Congress who make $175k a year get paid, while the GS-5 janitors who vacuum their offices are home without pay?

What department actually cuts the checks that get sent to Congressmen? Wouldn’t it be a part of the Executive branch? If so, couldn’t the President cut congressional pay until they got their act together?