Interpret and evaluate this claim about the shutdown please?

[Frylock]

HOWEVER, it IS ALSO true that these same House members did NOT separate the spending for the remaining agencies from defunding for the Affordable Care Act (ACA)… Had they done so, and made such a separation and not attached the defunding of ACA to the funding of the government writ large, the government writ large would be open today.

I’m reading a discussion in which the above comment was made by someone who was making otherwise fairly lucid and reasonable points. But I can’t quite figure out what they’re saying in the bit quoted above. If they’re making a valid point and I’m not understanding it, this is probably because there is something about the budgeting process in Congress that I’m not aware of. But on the other hand, it’s possible the guy’s just not making a valid point. I can’t tell, because I’m not completely sure what he’s saying.

[njtt]

I am not sure I understand what is puzzling you. It looks like what he is saying is that, if they had wanted, the Pubs could have voted not to fund the ACA (or not voted to fund it) without refusing to fund other stuff. As I understand things (though I may not) this would not have been possible (so your friend is confused) because ACA funding is (mainly, anyway) not hypothecated, but rather the act’s provisions are to be funded out of the general budget. There is no way to cut off specific funding for the law, without actually repealing the law.

However, without more context for your quote I may have misunderstood him (and thus the source of your confusion).

[Frylock]

@njtt

I am not sure I understand what is puzzling you. It looks like what he is saying is that, if they had wanted, the Pubs could have voted not to fund the ACA (or not voted to fund it) without refusing to fund other stuff.

But they didn’t refuse to fund the other stuff, did they? My understanding is that they sent out a bill which funds everything but ACA. In other words, my understanding is they did “vote not to fund the ACA (or not vote to fund it) without refusing to fund other stuff.”

Maybe that’s what I’m misunderstanding, that’s causing me not to understand the quote in my OP.

[Frylock]

But I think I figured it out anyway. Partly my mistake was not reading the rest of the guy’s comments. (I stopped at the part I quoted, or a little after.) Later on he returned to this point, and it looks like what he’s saying is that the House could have made it possible for the Senate to vote separately on each bit of funding, thus making it possible to agree with the House on most of the budget but disagree with them on ACA. And, he’s saying, the House chose not to do so.

Then the government would not have been shut down, and the fight would just be over ACA.

[Fear_Itself]

@Frylock

Later on he returned to this point, and it looks like what he’s saying is that the House could have made it possible for the Senate to vote separately on each bit of funding, thus making it possible to agree with the House on most of the budget but disagree with them on ACA. And, he’s saying, the House chose not to do so.

Then the government would not have been shut down, and the fight would just be over ACA.

The reason they chose not to is, they know targeting ACA will always fail in the Senate, and if it somehow was successful there, Obama would veto it. Republicans know they don’t have the votes to overcome a Presidential veto, so they resorted to extortion, holding the whole budget hostage to get what they were unable to attract enough votes for through the legislative process.

House Republicans just can’t take fuck you for an answer.

[Ravenman]

@Frylock

But I think I figured it out anyway. Partly my mistake was not reading the rest of the guy’s comments. (I stopped at the part I quoted, or a little after.) Later on he returned to this point, and it looks like what he’s saying is that the House could have made it possible for the Senate to vote separately on each bit of funding, thus making it possible to agree with the House on most of the budget but disagree with them on ACA. And, he’s saying, the House chose not to do so.

Then the government would not have been shut down, and the fight would just be over ACA.

It’s still really hard to tell what’s going on because the only context we have is the two sentences you quoted, but it is very important to note that the Senate approved and sent the House a funding bill that includes funding for the whole of government, but without the provision defunding Obamacare. The House is refusing to vote on it, even though it appears to have majority support in the body.

[OldGuy]

@Ravenman

It’s still really hard to tell what’s going on because the only context we have is the two sentences you quoted, but it is very important to note that the Senate approved and sent the House a funding bill that includes funding for the whole of government, but without the provision defunding Obamacare. The House is refusing to vote on it, even though it appears to have majority support in the body.

Not only are they refusing to vote on it, they changed their own rules specifically to make it so any member could not as a matter of privilege ask for such a vote. See my reply (#63) in this thread
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=703768&page=2
and the cites therein.