The Government Has Shut Down [01OCT2013]

The Constitution requires agreement between the House and the Senate and (absent the override of a veto) the President for any federal funds to be appropriated.

The Republicans are proposing to pass bills to provide funding for individual Departments and other designated operations of the Federal Government so as to provide funding, f'rinstance, to open national parklands to the public, to provide services for military personnel and veterans, to allow the District of Columbia to resume government operations, and to provide heathcare for kids with cancer, . . . with more to follow.

This is entirely Constitutional.

In fact, individual appropriations bills for departments, etc., used to be the norm. Until huge all-inclusive Bills materialized because the Houses of Congress started delaying things as long as they could [DonDiego supposes to stuff in more pork], . . . . and passing necessary legislation right before year-end, . . . fiscal year-end, . . . all at once [to hide the pork within the massive legislative package].

Even the Bill presently in suspension, containing the delay in Obamacare, isn't an Appropriations Bill. It's a "Continuing Resolution" authorizing Government expenditures at last years rate, because Congress hasn't figured out a budget for the year-already-started on Sunday.

The authors of the Constitution designed the document so that different elements of the Government could exercise checks over other elements. They were aware of the possibility of legislative gridlock; they provided no specific solution.

DonDiego suspects the Members of Congress and the Chief Executive will eventually work things out. But employing terms like "terrorist" against those with whom one disagrees is not likely to speed things up.

Oh, . . . and poor old DonDiego doesn't enjoy being told what he thinks or "has lost sight of". He'd much prefer a discussion of the facts with everyone stating what they think so readers know it is, indeed, what they think. DonDiego supposes no one likes to be told what they think; it's pretty much a lazy and meaningless argument.
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Yea, I can see the connection. One group gets a bonus for being away from their families and homes for long periods of time helping out with disaster relief. The other group gets a bonus for over insuring healthy people and under insuring sick people. Good comparison.

If you do not see a difference in motivation, there is no sense in continuing this discussion

73% of fed govt employees receive bonuses; I don't think all of them are working on disaster relief


i know dozens of federal workers. None, and i mean NONE have ever received a performance bonus. The study cited does not define what it calls a bonus. From the high numbers and the fact that disaster relief worker are the highest, I would assume they are defining bonus as pay over their annual salary, meaning over time.
There is no way that 73% of federal workers get performance bonuses.

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2 Actually shutting down the Government is unprecedented. It has happened only one other time, and that time it didn't turn out so good for the Republicans.


Ummm, unprecedented means it hasn't happened before. It can't happen before and still be unprecedented. The end result of the 1995 shut down was a balanced budget. I can understand why some Democrats think that is not a good thing. Also, there have been 12 shutdowns since 1981. Tip O'Neal is a clue to most of them.

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2Piecemeal bills should be vetoed. I think Don Diego has lost site of the larger issue. This is a Constitutional Crisis. What the House Republicans are attempting is simply a Coup d'état. Passing piecemeal bills that would open only parts of the Government that the tea party House members like or giving them victories on issues they can't win thorough the normal political process permanently emasculates the executive branch and the Senate. In other words the President and members of the Senate would become nothing more than nominal figureheads with no political power. The final say on every conceivable issue the Government faces would be decided on the whims and fancies of the Tea Party members of the house.

That's not how the Constitution reads and in our entire History as a Nation that is never how it worked. You can't negotiate with terrorists it only gives them more power over you.


Did you cut and paste most of that from some other source? Coup d'état? Terrorists? Really?

Obama via fiat has delayed parts of Obamacare. Obama via fiat has exempted specific groups from Obamacare. How can he legally do that? If you want to point to a Constitutional crisis, start with the man in the White House who believes he can do what ever he wants as payoffs to his political supporters. He can't legally rewrite law to suit himself. He is not a dictator, but he has been acting like one with support of Congressional Democrats. Continuing Resolutions are the only thing Democrats know since Obama took office. Annual Federal budgets are also covered by the Constitution. 5 years without one? Who did that and keeps doing that?

The House has a Republican majority. The Senate has a Democrat majority. That doesn't mean the Senate gets EVERYTHING they want without a vote or even a debate. That's not what this nation is about...or at least it didn't used to be.

I've read your posts concerning your own problems with the changes to health insurance. The "terrorists" attempting a "Coup d'état", according to you, are trying to stop or modify a program that you yourself have admitted will probably drive you and your wife into bankruptcy... That just doesn't make any sense.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
The Constitution requires agreement between the House and the Senate and (absent the override of a veto) the President for any federal funds to be appropriated.

The Republicans are proposing to pass bills to provide funding for individual Departments and other designated operations of the Federal Government so as to provide funding, f'rinstance, to open national parklands to the public, to provide services for military personnel and veterans, to allow the District of Columbia to resume government operations, and to provide heathcare for kids with cancer, . . . with more to follow.

This is entirely Constitutional.

In fact, individual appropriations bills for departments, etc., used to be the norm. Until huge all-inclusive Bills materialized because the Houses of Congress started delaying things as long as they could [DonDiego supposes to stuff in more pork], . . . . and passing necessary legislation right before year-end, . . . fiscal year-end, . . . all at once [to hide the pork within the massive legislative package].

Even the Bill presently in suspension, containing the delay in Obamacare, isn't an Appropriations Bill. It's a "Continuing Resolution" authorizing Government expenditures at last years rate, because Congress hasn't figured out a budget for the year-already-started on Sunday.

The authors of the Constitution designed the document so that different elements of the Government could exercise checks over other elements. They were aware of the possibility of legislative gridlock; they provided no specific solution.

DonDiego suspects the Members of Congress and the Chief Executive will eventually work things out. But employing terms like "terrorist" against those with whom one disagrees is not likely to speed things up.

Oh, . . . and poor old DonDiego doesn't enjoy being told what he thinks or "has lost sight of". He'd much prefer a discussion of the facts with everyone stating what they think so readers know it is, indeed, what they think. DonDiego supposes no one likes to be told what they think; it's pretty much a lazy and meaningless argument.


Much better said.
Im going to add one more thing. I can remember when they started rolling many different things all in one bill. There was so much pork and special interest items involved the idea of a line itemveto came up.That quickly went nowhere whenit was decided that was too much power in the prez hands,or something like that.

im having a hard time remembering anytime when Democrats threw 800k people to the unemployment lines as a means to bargain with Republicans....or kept food out of the mouths of women/children for that purpose...maybe somebody can help refresh my memory.
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
im having a hard time remembering anytime when Democrats threw 800k people to the unemployment lines as a means to bargain with Republicans....or kept food out of the mouths of women/children for that purpose...maybe somebody can help refresh my memory.


The democrats have been offered several compromises (including requiring that congress have the same insurance deal as everybody else & that indiviiduals get the same delay as corporations and unions) but have rejected them all.

At this point they are responsible

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
im having a hard time remembering anytime when Democrats threw 800k people to the unemployment lines as a means to bargain with Republicans....or kept food out of the mouths of women/children for that purpose...maybe somebody can help refresh my memory.


The democrats have been offered several compromises (including requiring that congress have the same insurance deal as everybody else & that indiviiduals get the same delay as corporations and unions) but have rejected them all.

At this point they are responsible
Lowering the ransom demands? How thoughtful!
DAY THREE

DonDiego is pleased to report that he awoke this morning shortly after 6:00am EDT, as is his custom.

The Sun did rise shortly thereafter, visible through a mild fog and thin higher clouds. All in all a pleasant October morning.

Sometime between these two events DonDiego observed that his toilet continues to function admirably; should it fail poor old DonDiego will likely have to become a Democrat.
"Lowering the ransom demands? How thoughtful! "

Unwilling to negotiate, how undemocratic. Apparently obama is the only one who can make changes to the law
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
"Lowering the ransom demands? How thoughtful! "

Unwilling to negotiate, how undemocratic. Apparently obama is the only one who can make changes to the law


Republicans have blocked all budget negotiatons since April...refusing to send members to work on a compromise of the budget in the normal process. They wanted to do it in the context of using a million paychecks as a hostage.
Republicans block budget negotiations

And they aren't fooling anybody now. No need to argue who is to blame in the microcosm of this message board. I'll let the broader polls speak for themselves.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now