I posted this yesterday over in the clusterfuck thread.
Isn’t that illegal? It’s certainly staking a political position.
And who would be enforcing this law?
That’s the rub.
A simple election would suffice, assuming you deign to hold such inconveniences any more.
If so then you have two shots at it. Just two. We’d be hopeful of a return to an approximation of normality. But if the incumbent roosters retain the Treasury benches, you have probably made your own bed.
What is the Straight Dope on what Dems want besides ACA? I’ve seen Facebook posts on other stuff and I want to know what’s true. I tried googling but didn’t find anything definitive.
Brian
Mostly they want to repubs to sit down and talk, negotiate, instead of stonewalling them. The ACA is indeed one thing the Dems want most, but they are willing to talk. The GOP wants the shut down, and wont talk.
Another thing they want is assurances that any deal they make won’t be negated by rescission.
Good point.
And yet such assurances would be worthless. If enshrined in law with criminal penalties, Trump would pardon the perps.
Other than nominating electable Democrats in 2026 and 2028, I have no answer to this.
That isn’t an issue. Perhaps you don’t understand what rescission is.
Congress passes a law requiring a certain amount of money to be spent in some specific way. It passes the Senate with at least 60 votes to override any filibuster. The President rescinds that law, saying he isn’t going to spend it. Right now, Congress can agree with the rescission with a simple majority vote in each House and thus the money doesn’t have to be spent. So what the Dems will probably want is to change the rescission provision to require the same number of votes in the Senate to agree with a rescission as it takes to override a filibuster.
Thanks for an explanation of rescission. It dug up what little I learned in my govt classes so I definitely appreciate that.
It bugs me that Trump’s office said yesterday that employees on furlough probably won’t get back pay. He was indifferent about it but I absolutely can’t be. Those and other recipients are actual people he’s talking about here.
The issue is that the senate majority could always just change their mind and go back to a simple majority for recission packages. You can’t pass a bill that specifies senate rules.
I still think this is a reasonable fight for the dems to have, partly because there has to be some kind of gentlemans agreement for the dems in the minority to have any power - the majority could just eliminate the filibuster for budgets.
I think the shutdown will continue until after the Nov elections (statewide for governor and other offices in VA and NJ and maybe some other states). I believe that’s the first real opportunity for something big to change in how either side sees the shutdown.
If one side sweeps big, then that will end it quick, I believe - the losing side will see that voters are rejecting their arguments, and change their tune. If it’s close, then that will prompt rethinking, which could still lead to one side blinking, but could also extend it further. But I’m betting both sides will be looking for a reason to end it at that point, and the election will provide a convenient rationale one way or the other. We’ll see.
Aye, there’s the rub.
Curious - why do you think statewide elections will effect Congress’ position? You think there might be an apparent landswell of support one way or another at the state level that will cause the other side worry?
Because it could be a sign of a coming wave election nationally, as well as a sign to specific VA and NJ congress members about their states. If just a few Republicans suddenly believe they’re now at risk of losing the next election, they could change the whole discussion.
The whole process of rescission is incorporated in law, including that debate on rescission bills is limited to 10 hours in the Senate, which is why they are not filibusterable. Cite: Public Law 93-344. So the Dems should want to amend that law to allow for unlimited debate.
But the senate can always choose to make an exception to the filibuster for anything. It would be unconstitutional to enshrine the filibuster into law for any type of senate vote.
Exactly. Since when does following the rules even matter anymore?
I mean if they wanted to the GOP could have already got rid of the filibuster for budget resolutions (something I think they’d be completely justified in doing). Like I said above, since this whole filibuster thing is a gentlemans agreement anyway, there’s nothi g wrong with asking for a gentlemans agreement over the recision process.