The GOP has a majority, they can just change the rules on the Filibuster. They have done so before.
The reconciliation rules are that they can use reconciliation once per year per category; once for revenue (taxes), once for spending, and once for the federal debt limit. In April of this year they used reconciliation to pass legislation for both spending and taxes (the “One Big Beautiful Bill”), so they can no longer use that process for anything other than changing the federal debt limit for the rest of the year. That’s why they can’t use that process for the current budget legislation.
It’s basically a once-per-year mulligan that they already used up, so now they’re forced to try to find a way to get Democrats in the Senate to be on board. If they could use reconciliation at will as many times as they wanted, they wouldn’t run into an impasse like this on a semi-regular basis in Congress.
Thanks for this. I didn’t know about the limits on reconciliation. All very arcane.
To clarify, Fetterman is practically a Republican in Democrats’ clothing.
Why aren’t republicans going with the nuclear option? Republicans have been happy to do it in the past.
In the United States Senate, the nuclear option is a legislative procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority, avoiding the three-fifths[1] supermajority normally required to invoke cloture on a measure. - SOURCE
Just a data point, but at golf the other day, 2 members of my 4-some commented on the Dems having shut the government down, and refusing to reopen it. I realized it was quite challenging to respond to that succinct soundbite, without using far more words.
I think claims of a “Democratic shutdown” is very effective branding, appealing to folk not interested in paying too much attention.
I also don’t think that the gleeful reaction that Trump seems to be having regarding the shutdown is doing the Republicans any favors.
Just ask them if they know Brandolini’s Law.
You know they won’t listen unless you call it by its true name, a “Democrat shutdown”.
I don’t think it’s true that most people blame the Democrats. Some may due to Chuck Todd Syndrome, where anything that happens anywhere in the world is bad news for Democrats. Some may due to Republican lies, such as that Democrats are shutting down the government to give “illegal aliens” free health care.
While I want what’s best for the people and to restore the Medicare subsidies that are going to hurt millions when they end. On the other hand, perhaps the best outcome is for Republicans to carve out an exception to the filibuster and go ahead with the cuts. The pain that results will then be solely that of Republicans and that may result in a blue tsunami. Should Democrats find themselves with the House, Senate, and White House there may be hope for a true public option.
Do you mean the expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies (for poor-to-moderate-income people under 65, who have to buy their own health insurance), which are currently slated to go away at the end of this year? Those are what the Democrats are demanding that the Republicans re-up as part of a bill to end the shutdown.
It’s both. From your cite:
The ACA subsidies are the primary (and more popular) plank of the Democratic counter-proposal, but restoring some Medicaid subsidies is part of it as well. And that is the part the GOP is hammering as “healthcare for illegal immigrants” (falsely, of course).
I wouldn’t be shocked if we end up with a compromise that includes an ACA subsidy extension of some sort but no change to Medicaid. But that would require negotiation, and so far the GOP hasn’t been willing to talk. And if the Democrats feel like the shutdown is hurting the GOP more than themselves, they may not be willing to let the Medicaid stuff go in order to give the GOP a chance to extend the ACA subsidies without the Medicaid restoration.
Yes and no. Yes, it’s “recent Medicaid cuts,” but I was replying to @BobLibDem, who had said:
He had mentioned Medicare subsidies, which wasn’t correct.
Actually, I was referring to the ACA subsidies. It must have been early when I posted.
You are, of course, correct. Sorry for the confusion!
I still think likely we will get an agreement that extends the ACA credits with no changes to Medicaid. Or the nuclear option, I guess. We’ll see if the GOP realizes that going scorched earth on the federal government isn’t likely to be popular with the public, even with the heavy-handed propaganda trying to pin it all on Democrats.
Most people see through the “sorry I have to hurt you so much, they made me do it” logic.
The Republicans voted against a bill to fund the government. If they had voted yes, the shutdown would be over. Therefore, it is the Republican’s fault.
There is also a vocal minority of far right Republicans who WANT the government to shut down.
I was wondering - the Rs say they will not bargain until the Ds drop the ACA subsidy requirement. How about the Ds drop that demand, but instead, demand some other concession. Then when the Rs refuse to negotiate that, offer yet another and another. That would have the benefit of eliminating any claim that the Ds are stuck on this one issue and that the Ds are refusing to negotiate, as well as as pointing out the breadth of issue on which the Rs are screwing everyone other than the top 1%.
Well, the obvious choice is demanding the unredacted release of all Epstein files.
But, really, there’s no need. Healthcare costs and subsidies is a winning issue among a majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. It’s a good hill to make a stand on.
Agreed.
And this might be a radical idea, but the Democrats might be pushing for the ACA because they actually want to make things better for people and not just score political victories.