A simple question which seems to lack a clear answer is: Will furloughed Federal employees get paid retroactively when (or if?) the government resumes operation?
In previous shutdowns, AFAIK, Congress voted to reimburse such employees for their “vacations” (seems silly: you shutdown to save money, then pay the salaries anyway while losing the labor :smack: ), but this time, since Republicans largely hate Federal employees anyway, it seems likely those employees will lose.
The Democrat-led Senate passed a bill to stop Congressional salaries during a shutdown, but the Republican House has not.
OK, I have to ask: what connection is there between the potential government shutdown (which you talk about) and the debt ceiling (which is the subject of my OP)? Because you’re not the only one talking about one when I asked about the other, and I’m wondering if there’s a political-type reason for it.
There does some to be a political connection, however, since not passing a budget and not raising the ceiling are “ideas” from the same Starve-the-Beast crowd.
Government shutdowns have occurred before, but has there ever been a ceiling failure? Perhaps the consequences are too dreadful to contemplate. To stop mailing social security checks might not be legal, and would backfire anyway. Would the Federal government start selling off its interstate highways to meet obligations? Sell its munitions inventory? I’m not being facetious.
I read that an abortion issue is one of the disputes in the present budget negotiation. Perhaps others still find such things hilarious, but my sense of humor is different from others’.
Well, that’s why I asked my question of waterj2: I’m not sure how “close” we have to get to default to start the dominos a-fallin’. Tho’ from what I understand, the situation is SO unprecedented that maybe we can’t know.
I just wish I knew how this budget thing will affect the debt ceiling vote. It seems to be one of those situations where ANY outcome could follow from ANY way events turn. It’s very confusing.
I’m just a little surprised that the topic of looming global financial Armageddon isn’t getting much discussion around here.
Sorry, no. The budget was supposed to have been passed last year, at which time the Democrats controlled both chambers of congress and the WH and couldn’t get their shit together.
A political fight with the pubs over the upcoming FY 2012 budget is inevitable (and will still happen). And of course pols will be posturing over the debt limit, as they always do (and as Obama himself did last time).
But no, you don’t to blame last year’s budget on the pubs. The dems controlled every lever, and yet failed to pass a budget for the first time in 35 years.
I will stipulate that Democrats are spineless, corrupt and unworthy, if it makes you feel happy, but to pretend that the Republicans are not the major problem is to demonstrate unpardonable ignorance.
Under Senate rules, as they have devolved, it is impossible to pass a bill without 60 votes. And the Obstructionist Party has made it very clear that they will never cast a single vote for a Democrat Administration unless [septimus checks whether we’re in BBQ PIT … no] every one of their scrufty a*s is ****** ****** and shi.
And after the Republicans happily obstruct, they send out their propagandists to pretend the Democrats are to blame! Sorry, furt, most Americans are pretty gullible, but this is the SDMB.
The Deme failed to pass the bill because of the Republican use of the filibuster. They stopped the budget in its tracks.
A big deal on this budget is the riders, a mere 70 or so. The Repubs insist that killing Planned Parenthood is part of the bill. They will fight hard to to defund it. They claim it is a measure of fiscal responsibility, not just killing a program for the poor and needy for political gain.
And if they can’t submit a budget reasonable enough peel off two or three moderate pubs, the blame falls on them. Collins/Snowe/Kirk/Brown/Murkowski have repeatedly shown themselves willing to buck their party and get a deal done.
If Obama and Reid aren’t able to craft a budget moderate enough to win over Olympia Snowe, they’re at fault, not Mitch McConnell. That’s the job of governance.
There’s been a “moderate pub” sighting!? Where and when did that happen?!?
It’s been fairly clear to me such an animal is all but extinct (at least as far as elected officials at the federal level go). Or, perhaps you’re definition of “moderate” is “in lock step with the party for all but a couple votes”. Which, of course, is not “moderate” at all.
R Mark Kirk IL 2%
R Susan Collins ME 67%
R Olympia Snowe ME 69%
D Ben Nelson NE 69%
R George Voinovich OH 69%
D Arlen Specter PA 71%
D Evan Bayh IN 72%
R Lisa Murkowski AK 80%
D Russ Feingold WI 80%
R Scott Brown MA 81%
R Kit Bond MO 81%
D Claire McCaskill MO 81%
R Richard Lugar IN 82%
R Judd Gregg NH 83%
D Blanche Lincoln AR 84%
R Lamar Alexander TN 84%
We had a filibusterproof majority from September 2009 through January 2010. A bit early to be working on the budget but theoretically we could have apssed a budget then (of course we were still working on the 2009 budget at the time).
I’ll admit to some confusion when looking at your cite. For instance, Mark Kirk is listed as only 2% likely to vote with the party. And yet, if you then click on his name, you find:
Clearly, something is askew.
And that’s without considering what exactly “votes with party” means, which to me includes some measure of legislative content.
Without looking in-depth at their site, it means “voted the same way most of the people in their party did,” regardless of content. Of course, lots of bills either pass or are rejected by majorities of both parties. (e.g. Rand Paul’s Libya motion losing 90-10).
I don’t know what’s up with Kirk’s numbers there; even ignoring him, the moderate dealmakers are/were the ones after: Collins, Snowe, Voinovich, Murkowski, Brown, Bond, Lugar. If can’t win over any one of those people (and for most of the period, one was all that was needed) – when you know damn well you’re gonna lose seats in the fall 2010 and it’s gonna get even harder – that’s incompetence.
Well, I did “stipulate that Democrats are spineless, corrupt and unworthy.” On many important matters, the Democrats in power pursue corrupt policies not so different from those of the GOP.
The whole American political system has become a self-parody which would be hilarious … if it were happening in some unimportant 3rd-world country. (And I’m no left-wing radical, but instead someone who would have scoffed at talk like mine even 16 years ago.)
OK, a budget deal has been reached. At least now there’s an angle to take on how this’ll affect the debt ceiling issue (unless, of course, said deal is voted down, in which case it’s still as opaque as before).
Will there be the votes to raise it? What would/could Republicans “safely” demand if not? Could they conceivably basically hold the entire world economy hostage by doing so?
A blog comment said that there was an NBC/WSJ poll (can’t find the poll itself right now) that says that a majority oppose raising the limit, even after it was explained that not doing so meant default.
