Government avoids shutdown until Wednesday

[kenberg]

I get alerts from the Washington Post. This one was titled

 

Senate averts shutdown

 

 

 

The story begins:

 

In a rare Saturday session, the Senate voted to approve a backstop measure to extend current government funding until Wednesday...

 

 

 

Dear Senator Hogwash,

 

If this is intended as a joke it has long since ceased to be funny.

 

With all due respect (i.e. with no respect at all),

 

Your constituent, and I am positive that I speak for many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bbradley62]

My Centrist view of a good bill: almost anything that passes the Senate without the votes of either Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren.

[hrothgar]

My Centrist view of a good bill: almost anything that passes the Senate without the votes of either Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren.

 

PLease give some examples of such bills...

[Bbradley62]

I expect (hope?) that the upcoming vote on the spending bill will be such a vote. Both Cruz and Warren have spoken out loudly against it. Of course, there are not many examples of "good" coming out of Washington these days...

 

Edit: Ha! There is another one: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00021

[barmar]

To answer the question in the thread title: considering the gridlock that Congress has been in for the past decade, we should be happy any time they manage to pass anything.

 

And don't forget that last year they DID allow a government shutdown.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps we should be happier they don't manage to pass anything. B-)

 

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law…

 

Attributed to T. Jefferson: Hm. Should have put a period after the word "law".

[cherdano]

I expect (hope?) that the upcoming vote on the spending bill will be such a vote. Both Cruz and Warren have spoken out loudly against it. Of course, there are not many examples of "good" coming out of Washington these days...

 

Edit: Ha! There is another one: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00021

 

I see. You are really a fan of farm subsidies, and of cuts to food stamps.

[Bbradley62]

The bill decreases spending on food stamps (SNAP) and farm subsidies by $16.6B over 10 years. $8B of this decrease is in SNAP, representing a 1% SNAP budget cut, largely by disqualifying lottery winners and those convicted (after the passage of the bill) of certain heinous felonies. The other $8.6B comes from revamping the farm subsidy system, including ceasing to pay farmers for not growing crops. Yes, I think this is reasonable. Dems supported the bill 44-9 and GOP didn't 22-23, with both Independents approving for a total of 68-32. And yes, it is an example of the Centrist members of both parties working together to get something done.

[cherdano]

The bill decreases spending on food stamps (SNAP) and farm subsidies by $16.6B over 10 years. $8B of this decrease is in SNAP, representing a 1% SNAP budget cut, largely by disqualifying lottery winners and those convicted (after the passage of the bill) of certain heinous felonies. The other $8.6B comes from revamping the farm subsidy system, including ceasing to pay farmers for not growing crops. Yes, I think this is reasonable. Dems supported the bill 44-9 and GOP didn't 22-23, with both Independents approving for a total of 68-32. And yes, it is an example of the Centrist members of both parties working together to get something done.

 

Well, I strongly oppose most efforts to make distinctions for convicted felons who have served their sentence. It makes for some probably successful (but in my view disgusting) political posturing, but it runs counter to the goal of reintegrating them to the society. (Yes, I also think they should be allowed to vote.) As an aside, on a practical level it probably means that everyone receiving food stamps now has to fill out a slightly longer form with questions about past convictions, thus making what's probably a humiliating experience for many slightly more tedious and humiliating.

 

On a larger point, Republicans have gotten away with obstructing completely common sense bills or nominees, just for the sake of obstructing them. Why did they get away with it? Because too many voters apply the logic "if it/he/she is backed by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, it must be a crazy left-wing bill".

[kenberg]

My thought as I posted was not issue specific. It was more along the lines of: If I were a Senator, I would hope I would never have to say "Well, I came in on Saturday to vote to keep the government running until next Wednesday". I think we pretty much all understand that our elected representaives are an embarrassment, but I am now realizing that they don't mind being an embarrassment, at least they don't mind enough to do something about it. How do these people handle social situations? Someone at a party introduces them as a Senator and everyone turns silent as if they have just been introduced to a pimp? I think this really has to be addressed. There have been powerful politicians that create great emotion. Tip O/Neill in the House and Lyndon Johnson in the Senate, and of course later in the presidency, come to mind. People loved them, or people hated them, but no one thought that they were ineffectual clowns. Unfortunately, that has changed.

 

And if I hear one more time about how they are so dedicated they even came in and worked on a Saturday, how energetic, imagine that, I think I will puke.

 

Suggestion (well not really): Perhaps we could have Senators be paid on a weekly basis, and very Saturday the country could electronically vote to decide whether they should or should not receive their p[ay for that week.

[cherdano]

I think we pretty much all understand that our elected representaives are an embarrassment, but I am now realizing that they don't mind being an embarrassment, at least they don't mind enough to do something about it.

 

But the blame lies with the voters. Yes they are upset about nothing getting done in Washington, but they don't look closely enough to see whether their representatives might be to blame. And they blame Obama because he didn't manage to work successfully with Congress.

 

I think the genius of Mitch Mcconell is underrated. He realized early on that a dysfunctional government would mean that Obama is considered less successful. And as long as Republicans were unanimous in blocking bills there would be no risk for them, as in the eyes of most voters a bill supported by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans must be an extreme left-wing bill.

 

And in this thread we have an example of a voter who even says openly that he judges bills based on this heuristic (even if it was half in-jest).

 

You blame the senators. I blame the ones who put them in charge.

[hrothgar]

You blame the senators. I blame the ones who put them in charge.

 

Sadly, I fear that Cherdano is correct on this one.

 

American's no longer deserve to have good government. By and large, the population is ignorant and lazy.

Their government is a mirror of the voters.

 

On the bright side I'm rich enough that none of this is going to impact me, other than a profound feeling of distaste.

[Bbradley62]

Well, I strongly oppose most efforts to make distinctions for convicted felons who have served their sentence. It makes for some probably successful (but in my view disgusting) political posturing, but it runs counter to the goal of reintegrating them to the society.

The limitation applies only to murder, rape, and sexual child molestation, and only to those who are convicted of these crimes after the enactment of the law. Such offenders will not have served their sentences until a good many years from now, so I expect the permanency of the ban can/will be addressed at a later date.

 

(Yes, I also think they should be allowed to vote.)

I, and the vast majority of Americans and U.S. states, agree with you. As you can see from this ACLU-provided map ( https://www.aclu.org/maps/map-state-criminal-disfranchisement-laws ) only 10 states have any permanent voting bans.

 

As an aside, on a practical level it probably means that everyone receiving food stamps now has to fill out a slightly longer form with questions about past convictions, thus making what's probably a humiliating experience for many slightly more tedious and humiliating.

It means adding ONE QUESTION (and checking either the "yes" box or the "no" box): Since 2/4/2014, have you been convicted of any of the following felonies... Not tedious or humiliating (said as someone who has personally filled out these applications).

 

On a larger point, Republicans have gotten away with obstructing completely common sense bills or nominees, just for the sake of obstructing them. Why did they get away with it? Because too many voters apply the logic "if it/he/she is backed by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, it must be a crazy left-wing bill".

Did you see the vote I posted on this bill? Clearly supported by a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans. And you seem to think it's draconian, whereas I'm calling it reasonable. Yes, unfortunately, Senate rules allow for excessive obstructing by whichever party is in the minority. Note that my political heroes, the Gang of 14, were formed in 2014 in response to DEMOCRATIC Senate leadership's excessive obstruction. It works both ways.

[kenberg]

Sadly, I fear that Cherdano is correct on this one.

 

Americans no longer deserve to have good government. By and large, the population is ignorant and lazy.

Their government is a mirror of the voters.

 

On the bright side I'm rich enough that none of this is going to impact me, other than a profound feeling of distaste.

 

I guess John Gruber agrees with you. Do you think people are lazier and/or stupider now than they were fifty years ago? I'm actually serious about this question. I am neither rich nor stupid. My father was neither rich nor stupid. There are times when I think that the nation has collectively taken a dumbness pill but then I get a hold on myself and think maybe not.

 

If people now are about the same as people were fifty years ago, and mostly I think that this is true, then we have to look elsewhere for cause.

[Winstonm]

I don't think people are less smart, but quality information is difficult to find.

 

I think that the biggest difference between now and say, 1960, is that it is much more difficult to find a non-biased assessment of what is occurring, i.e., information that is based on a search for the truth of the situation rather than promoting a position for political gain.

[hrothgar]

Do you think people are lazier and/or stupider now than they were fifty years ago? I'm actually serious about this question. I am neither rich nor stupid. My father was neither rich nor stupid. There are times when I think that the nation has collectively taken a dumbness pill but then I get a hold on myself and think maybe not.

 

If people now are about the same as people were fifty years ago, and mostly I think that this is true, then we have to look elsewhere for cause.

 

I think that there are obvious changes in American society today compared to where we were 50 years ago.

 

50 years ago, if you were born black, the deck was severely stacked against you.

That hasn't changed today, however, these days it also sucks if you're a poor or even a working class white.

 

The world has changed, America lost a very privileged position, and we as a society definitely aren't dealing well with this.

 

Sadly, I see too many people responding by making claims about "American Exceptionalism", acting as if they have a god given right to have the best of everything simply because of where they we born, and rejoicing in their collective stupidity.

 

Jumping back to your core question, the core of what changed is probably grounded in a combination of

 

1. The recovery of the European economies following the great wars

2. The reintegration of China into the global economy

3. The closing of the American frontier

4. Increased concentration of wealth in the US

 

All of this has conspired to make a life a lot more difficult for many Americas. However, I don't see much chance of any of these genies being put back into their respective bottles.

[kenberg]

We may agree. If I may paraphrase, and I apologize if it is not what you are saying, it is not so much that people are lazier or stupider than they were fifty years ago, it is that the demands on them are greater.

 

Even if this isn't what you are saying, it is what I am saying.

 

The world has changed. But that is too pat an answer. We need to see how it has changed, what is possible, what is not. My life simply was easier, I think. We weren't smarter, it's that life was easier.

[ArtK78]

My Centrist view of a good bill: almost anything that passes the Senate without the votes of either Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren.

So, what you are saying is that a bill that does not get the vote of someone with the intelligence of a piece of wood (Mr. Cruz) or from someone who is actually too good for the Senate (Ms. Warren) is a worthwhile bill. An interesting viewpoint.

 

By the way, in reference to the OP, the budget resolution that passed yesterday should keep the government running until at least next September, not just next Wednesday.

 

 

[hrothgar]

We may agree. If I may paraphrase, and I apologize if it is not what you are saying, it is not so much that people are lazier or stupider than they were fifty years ago, it is that the demands on them are greater.

 

I would agree

[Bbradley62]

By the way, in reference to the OP, the budget resolution that passed yesterday should keep the government running until at least next September, not just next Wednesday.

All that passed yesterday was a resolution to vote on the actual bill that will keep the government running until September. That vote is still upcoming.

[PassedOut]

All that passed yesterday was a resolution to vote on the actual bill that will keep the government running until September. That vote is still upcoming.

Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

 

The Senate approved a sweeping $1.1 trillion spending bill Saturday night to fund most of the federal government through the next fiscal year.

[blackshoe]

Well, I strongly oppose most efforts to make distinctions for convicted felons who have served their sentence. It makes for some probably successful (but in my view disgusting) political posturing, but it runs counter to the goal of reintegrating them to the society. (Yes, I also think they should be allowed to vote.) As an aside, on a practical level it probably means that everyone receiving food stamps now has to fill out a slightly longer form with questions about past convictions, thus making what's probably a humiliating experience for many slightly more tedious and humiliating.

 

I agree with your position on convicted felons. The way things are, if you get convicted of a felony, you are never going to be considered "reintegrated into society". You might as well just shoot yourself.

 

On a larger point, Republicans have gotten away with obstructing completely common sense bills or nominees, just for the sake of obstructing them. Why did they get away with it? Because too many voters apply the logic "if it/he/she is backed by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, it must be a crazy left-wing bill".

Or "crazy right-wing bill" from the other side of the spectrum.

 

I'm not sure there are any "completely common sense bills". :D

[Bbradley62]

Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

ok. good. that was 5 hours after OP created this thread. Glad to see it was done.

[cherdano]

On a larger point, Republicans have gotten away with obstructing completely common sense bills or nominees, just for the sake of obstructing them. Why did they get away with it? Because too many voters apply the logic "if it/he/she is backed by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, it must be a crazy left-wing bill".

 

Did you see the vote I posted on this bill? Clearly supported by a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans. And you seem to think it's draconian, whereas I'm calling it reasonable.

I clearly wasn't talking about this specific bill. You could have guessed so, because the vote count does not match my description of the bills I am talking about. The phrasing "On a larger point" might also have hinted at the fact that I was, ahem, making a more general point not directly related to this bill, but to your principle "If Warren supports it, it must be a bad bill".

As an aside, the restriction to felons wasn't the only cut to foodstamps - you certainly wouldn't save 1% from that over the next 10 years, as most of the felons it applies to will still be behind bars.

 

Back to the specific bill. I don't think HR 2642 is a terrible bill by any means. But my guess it that Warren objected it because of the cut to foodstamps. I agree with her. I also guess that Cruz objected to it because it didn't cut farm subsidies enough.(*) I agree with him.

 

So by your logic, the bill was better because neither Warren nor Cruz got their way. In my view, the bill would have been better on the merits if both Warren and Cruz had gotten their way.

 

(*) E.g. that is the reason Freedomworks opposed it, see

http://congress.freedomworks.org/bills/house-bill-hr-2642-0?keyvote=10739&tab=bill.

[hrothgar]

I clearly wasn't talking about this specific bill. You could have guessed so, because the vote count does not match my description of the bills I am talking about. The phrasing "On a larger point" might also have hinted at the fact that I was, ahem, making a more general point not directly related to this bill, but to your principle "If Warren supports it, it must be a bad bill".

As an aside, the restriction to felons wasn't the only cut to foodstamps - you certainly wouldn't save 1% from that over the next 10 years, as most of the felons it applies to will still be behind bars.

 

Back to the specific bill. I don't think HR 2642 is a terrible bill by any means. But my guess it that Warren objected it because of the cut to foodstamps. I agree with her. I also guess that Cruz objected to it because it didn't cut farm subsidies enough.(*) I agree with him.

 

So by your logic, the bill was better because neither Warren nor Cruz got their way. In my view, the bill would have been better on the merits if both Warren and Cruz had gotten their way.

 

(*) E.g. that is the reason Freedomworks opposed it, see

http://congress.freedomworks.org/bills/house-bill-hr-2642-0?keyvote=10739&tab=bill.

 

 

I was listening to Diane Rehms a couple days back. According to the panelists, Warren's major object was related to relaxing section 716 of Dodd-Frank (the so called swap push out rule). This would allow banks to increase the scope of their swap trading while maintaining FDIC insurance to cover the loses.

 

No one discussed Cruz specifically, but they described the main objection of the Tee Party as relating to increasing the amount of money that individual donors can provide directly to political parties.