The control the House of Representatives unless 18 of their members cross party lines. That means that they do not have to approve any expenditures or raise the debt ceiling. That is quite a bit to negotiate with. Their ploy is described in theory in many high school civics textbooks. Extortion implies that it is against a legal proscription. It isn’t.
They, and the Democrats, are playing a game of chicken with the economy at stake. Supposedly, debts and pensions and Article III judges could continue to be paid per the 14th Amendment.
I think that the House Republicans are stupid beyond all belief. Their actions will crash the world economy and destroy the US government if they continue. And, of course, the Democrats could give up Obamacare, food stamps, social security changes and other things.
We live in interesting times. This whole thing is a terrible precedent. I blame Republicans and Republicans blame Democrats. Well, Republicans and liquor.
Bricker, you’re missing the context. Unions have no power to bring the world economy to its knees. Withholding labor for a private corporation is not in the same ballpark in shutting down the government and/or defaulting on the debt. The law recognizes this, in fact, government employees cannot go on strike, because doing so would be extortion.
It’ san interesting analogy, the striking workers to the Republicans. In a lot of ways, it’s a very similar situation.
There are some differences:
Monopoly. The “company,” i.e., the Democrats, don’t have a choice of going to get different “workers,” i.e., the Republicans. Note that this is also the case under some labor disputes, so it’s not always a difference.
Sides. Workers and owners have fundamentally different goals (workers: get as much money from the employer as possible for each unit of work; owner: give as little money as possible to the employee for each unit of work). There is no ultimate goal that’s the same; to the extent that interests coincide, it’s only on a path toward those opposing goals. Democrats and Republicans are supposed to have the same goal (having a functioning country).
Alternatives. Workers realistically lack an alternative to striking (for many workers, it’s impractical to go find a better-paying job). Republicans have an alternative (they can offer something that Democrats want but that Republicans don’t want, in exchange for getting something Republicans want but Democrats don’t want).
Contract. Republican congresspeople took an oath of office saying they’d fulfill their constitutional duties; for them to remain in office but violate that oath (by not funding the government, for example–and no, I’m not saying this is illegal, just unethical) is very different from a worker not under contract choosing not to work.
I think all these differences are significant.
Republicans absolutely could come to the negotiating table in good faith. They’ve blocked universal background checks, increased capital gains taxes, increased estate taxes, countless judicial appointments, etc. These are all items they could put on the negotiating table in good faith.
But the health of the nation’s economy isn’t something they can put on the table in good faith, because it’s something they also want.
I did too. Every definition I saw includes a threat with force and a threat that’s illegal. According to your interpretation any threat of any kind is extortion?
I think the answer, in part, depends on what you see as the role of congress, specifically, the house. If it simply continues to accept increases in spending, aren’t they, over years, complicit in it? The house is of the opinion that there has to be some limits, so their doing two things, increasing the pain of the spending and seeking to defund or delay a program they believe is bad for the country. Closing of the government for a short term is really not a big deal. And the ramifications of it going longer I think are worse for Obama, in that over years, he is the one that will be most closely associated with it. Especially with his lines in the sand and "I will not negotiate"s. Fairly or unfairly, Presidents are tied to what happens under their watch. So, he’ll be the guy who got bin Laden and the guy who couldn’t keep the government open.
So, what the house republicans bring to the table, to a degree, is Obama’s legacy. That, and given that their view of Obamacare is legitimate (even if their assessments are incorrect) they are offering to dial down their resistance. So far, they’ve gone from defund to delay for a year to “don’t treat congresspersons like Dukes and Earls, treat them like everyone else”.
Where we are is largely a result of the dangers of a major law being shoved down the throats of the other party with zero votes from them. Sometimes, the way things are done have ramifications, as we now see.
But refusing to pay the bills for the government they already approved will, in effect, damage the U.S. and global economy. Is cause/effect really that hard to understand? “I didn’t kill the hostage, I only pulled the trigger, the bullet killed the hostage”. That’s what this argument sounds like to me.
Isn’t it illegal for the congress to not pay the country’s bills? To refuse to pay for things that were duly passed into law in that same body? Doesn’t the constitution say that the full faith and credit of the U.S. shall not be questioned or something to that effect? Doesn’t this temper tantrum clearly violate that?
Also, they are threatening to take down the entire global economy and ruin the credit of the U.S. unless their demands are met. Doesn’t giving in to this mean that the House will forever be able to force the rest of the Government to bend to its will or let the country and the gobal economy suffer? Do we want all government power to be vested in that one branch of government now and forever forward? Do you defenders of this tactic really want that to happen? It seems to me that you are being incredibly short sighted here.
Can you explain exactly what you’re ‘seeing’ for definition on the word extortion. I was not interpreting the definition - I simply repeated it as it appeared quite clearly on the google search link.
That’s a real stretch. The unions by their strike (“inaction”) could be forcing others not to work as well (let’s say the factory suppliers). If so - extortion?
Well, if in fact the law says that government employees cannot go on strike, because doing so would be extortion, then I agree I have definitively lost the argument.
But i don’t think you’re right – I don’t think the law says that. I think it just prohibits a number of things from US government employees, including strikes, with no mention of “extortion” as a rationale, and including in the same breath prohibitions against being a contentious Communist:
Honestly, it’s not illegal for the House not to pass a budget. They are well within their rights to behave as they’ve been doing.
Too many people seem to want to find some means by which the opposing side can be punished for their actions, but it’s not there. Both sides are coloring within the lines and hoping that political pressure will make the other side blink.
Now whether the Republican House Caucus is behaving wisely…that’s another idea. I think in both short and long term consequences they’ll be taking it in the neck. Gaming it out, if they go on for a while, they’ll take the blame in 2014 similar to what happened under Gingrich. This will not make me cry and can have long-term consequences on who holds the House.
If they WIN, then a new tactic that they will HATE will come to be legitimized. They scream bloody murder the first time a Democratic majoriy holds something hostage. Imagine if some special weapons program or business regulatory body finds itself subject to that sort of behavior. It won’t be pretty.
Still, they seem determined to play it out. All we can do is watch and hope they don’t damage the country too badly.
Mirriam Webster definites it “the crime of getting money from someone by the use of force or threats”.
Wikipedia calls it “a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.”
It’s silly to go back and forth with dictionary definitions and nitpicking, though.
Do you really think extortion is just a synonym for “threat”? If so, I think you’re wrong as even your own cite shows. There also needs to be a threat involving force and it needs to be illegal. Neither of which is the case with the shutdown.
When Reagan and Bush II were elected, the Democratic House went along with their programs, as awful as they were. I just don’t see the Democrats in the House ever insisting on their budget and no other.
No it isn’t something they want. Just because we assume that they want it because it makes good sense to us doesn’t mean that they want that. They want to destroy Obamacare at any cost. They’ve taken plenty of action to show that. They will not be “disrespected”, they’ve said that. They want concessions but don’t know what they are, they’ve let that slip too. They are quite simply drunk with booze and power. But, hey, the House members gym is open!
Do you think it is negotiating in good faith, if one side is offering zero concessions, and all they are doing is listing demands and offering only “we won’t destroy the U.S. and global economy” from their side of the table? Do you consider that a legitimate negotiating tactic that the President should just acquiesce to? If not, why are you defending it? Typically people defend things that they actually agree with.
As I mentioned previously, you can only legitimately call what they are doing ‘negotiations’ if you put the word ‘hostage’ in front of it. They are holding the entire global economy hostage with a metaphorical gun to its head and are promising to kill it if the rest of the country doesn’t yield 100% to their will. And you and your ilk are defending this tactic. I hope you understand the repercussions of a small minority being able to do this and get away with it. The future ability of our government to function is at stake here, not just the ego and pride of a bunch of politicians that can’t come to terms with the fact that they lost and they don’t get to have their way. Children learn that lesson, why can’t our elected officials?
You are right in that many defintions specify that extortion is a crime, however they all make a point of saying it can be done with either a threat or by force. So your only real defence is by stating that what congress is doing is legal. Fair enough, but I personally would call it “legal” extortion. I still do not see anything that establishes this as negotiation.
I’m not defending it in the sense that it is a good idea and won’t eventually starve millions. It’s legal. But I don’t think it is moral or a good idea in any respect. Incidentally, I don’t think they will back down. I’m hoping 18 or more of them cross-party lines, but I don’t think they will. They are too isolated and selfish (and drunk) to see what it is they are doing. I think they will force a default and have to see the consequences a few weeks down the road before enough of them decide it has to stop.
I disagree with two of those and might agree with another two. If you want to discuss whether the shutdown is reasonable or rational or democratic or a disaster there are a dozen threads open already.
This threat is about whether it’s extortion. It’s not.
I don’t think anyone wants that to happen. But if we all can agree that this needs to be averted, shouldn’t Reid pass the bill the house put forth that funds everything completely and just delays the individual mandate of Obamacare for one year? If all the ramifications are so bad, why not just agree to a one year delay for that one aspect?