US HoR- "Just shut it all down!"

[Kuja]

huffpo

WASHINGTON -- Ignoring the wishes of the White House and the Senate, the House of Representatives passed a stopgap funding bill Friday that will shut down the government unless Democrats agree to defund President Barack Obama's marquee health care law.

While the House voted 230 to 189 to pass the measure that Democrats have called unacceptable, Republicans insisted their bill does nothing to shutter the federal government.

"It simply keeps the lights on in our government," said Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, on Friday.

Rogers, whose committee is effectively short-circuited by the three-month stopgap bill, said almost nothing about the Affordable Care Act, but House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) made clear that the main point of the measure is to block the health care law.

"This resolution will also protect the working middle class from the devastating effects of Obamacare," said Cantor. "Let's defund this law now, and protect the American people from the economic calamity that we know Obamacare will create."

The vote marked the 42nd time that the House Republican conference has said yes to gutting Obamacare. While some tweaks have been made to the program, the Senate has ignored nearly everything the House has pushed for.

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who faces reelection in a district that Obama carried in 2012, was the only Republican to vote against the bill. Rigell has bucked his party on fiscal matters before; he appeared with the president at an event in February opposing sequestration and even took a ride aboard Air Force One.




Rigell released a statement in which he said he agreed that Obamacare should be defunded, but couldn't support a bill that would set government spending levels at sequester levels.

"This [continuing resolution] fails to address the sequester that is negatively impacting those who wear our nation’s uniform and is the result of Congress' inability to pass the 12 appropriations bills necessary to properly fund the government on time," Rigell said. "What is needed is a comprehensive solution to our nation’s fiscal challenges, including a replacement for sequestration."

On the Democratic side, Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) were the only two lawmakers to vote in favor of the bill. The blue dog Democrats have often voted across party lines in the past.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slammed the bill in a floor speech ahead of the vote, saying that the measure "was designed to shut down the government."

"It could have no other intent. Its purpose is clear," Pelosi said. "It is a wolf in wolf's clothing."

"Either you don't know what you are doing, or this is one of the most intentional acts of brutality that you have cooked up, with stiff competition for that honor," she added, while underscoring the damaging effects the bill would have on a program that provides health insurance to more than 8 million moderate-income children.

The continuing resolution would not only permanently strip the Affordable Care Act of its funding, but would lock in government spending at sequester levels that conflict with the budget passed in the Senate. It also sets up another potentially even more consequential showdown over the nation's debt limit, by including the so-called Full Faith and Credit Act, a measure that Republicans say would allow the Treasury Department to still pay the nation's creditors, and therefore avoid a default, if the debt limit, now at $16.7 trillion, is not raised sometime next month.

Democrats have dubbed that measure the "Pay China First Act," pointing out that it would prioritize payments to U.S. bondholders, which include many foreign governments like China, while obligations such as Medicare and military benefits would be placed on the backburner.

While leaders such as Cantor insisted that the legislation was responsible, many members of his own party, including more than a dozen senators, have called the move "foolish" and "dumb."

Even Rogers seemed aware of the potential pitfalls of the stratagem.

"I'd like to remind my colleagues … both in the House and the other body that a government shutdown is a political game in which everyone loses," Rogers said. "It shirks one of our most basic duties as members of Congress, and it puts our national security at stake. To be clear, if this legislation is not enacted and we embark on a government shutdown, the consequences are severe."

"Our brave men and women in uniform don't get paid, our recovering economy will take a huge hit," he added. "A government shutdown, even the illusion of the threat of a shutdown, says to the American people that this Congress does not have their best interests at heart."

Holy shit dude. Are we back here? Are we really back to government shutdown? Is this the 90s again? Is Mortal Kombat coming back to theaters?

[Knife]

It's pure political maneuvering that is already biting the GOP in the ass. Several GOP congressmen have already called out bomb throwers in the Senate for virtually giving up before a fight in the Senate, the same group who have been egging on the House for weeks now. On congressional aide going so far as to say a Senator has no balls.

Definitely something to pull up a chair, grab some pop corn, and watch.

[Zaune]

You know what? I say call their bluff this time. Let's see how the Fundamentalist Church of Reagan like the dog-eat-dog libertarian paradise they've always wanted, just for a week or two.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Zaune, if they actually go through with this shit and crash the economy hard core then the world goes with us. The US holds too much influence on the world economy to say "Let them deal see their idea is shitty." If they actually crash the economy it'll be an actual Great Depression 2.0. As much as I'm sick of how things are being run at this point, I don't truly believe there's any gain to be had by destroying everything.


It goes without saying that the GOP is being horrifically irresponsible here and is most likely bluffing. I'll not delve into things because there are people on here that can say it much more eloquently than I will. I will say that calling this "Pay China First" is disingenuous, what with China not holding that large a percent of US national debt. It's people and organizations in the US itself that hold bonds, for the most part. Other countries do still hold a fair bit, but China is not the biggest creditor of the US.

[Guardsman Bass]

A debt ceiling default would be worse than a shutdown. The US actually took a long-term hit on its credit rating back in the 1970s just because it was temporarily breached completely by accident - I'd hate to see what would happen if there was a deliberate and public default. Bad news for the world economy.

[Patroklos]

That hit in its credit rating being near irrelevant as the market is relative to us in that regard. The default is pretty meaningless too, as we are talking about single percentage points on what's owed being defaulted that everyone knows we cold cut back into the black with just the slightest pinch of entitlement reform. The market will take their normal superficial reaction hit, but nothing real will actually change, I point tot that same mentioned credit rating downgrade that did nothing.

We will be borrowing the second after a default whether we address it or not. That's not to say I want to see it happen, but since the Dems won't reform any spending driver of importance and the Reps won't raise taxes we might need to break an egg and see what we can cook with it.

[Magis]

That hit in its credit rating being near irrelevant as the market is relative to us in that regard.

This is not true. If the credit rating is lowered, we may very well see a rise in borrowing interest rates, which means a plunge in the value of Treasurys, which is bad for everyone who holds them. Also, financial institutions have risk management rules that limit the amount of money that can be allocated to non-AAA investments.

The default is pretty meaningless too, as we are talking about single percentage points on what's owed

I think it's pretty meaningful to the people who are owed money and aren't repaid.

everyone knows we cold cut back into the black with just the slightest pinch of entitlement reform.

Do you understand that the debt we're talking about has already been committed? The government owes money to people, therefore Treasurys must be issued to raise the money to pay those commitments. If the House doesn't want to raise the debt limit, then they shouldn't have authorized the spending commitments that require the issuance of new Treasurys.

The market will take their normal superficial reaction hit, but nothing real will actually change, I point tot that same mentioned credit rating downgrade that did nothing.

The last credit downgrade was only made by one of the three rating agencies, but remember, that downgrade occurred when there was actually no default. If there is a default, you can expect the downgrades to come fast and hard from all three rating agencies. That will cause borrowing rates to increase.

[Zaune]

Zaune, if they actually go through with this shit and crash the economy hard core then the world goes with us. The US holds too much influence on the world economy to say "Let them deal see their idea is shitty." If they actually crash the economy it'll be an actual Great Depression 2.0. As much as I'm sick of how things are being run at this point, I don't truly believe there's any gain to be had by destroying everything.

I'm not wild about the idea either, but maybe that's what it's going to take to change the status quo. Goodness knows we haven't had much luck with what's already been tried.

[Dalton]

What's great about this is that the Senate Democrats can just strip out the language defunding the ACA with a simple majority vote, forcing the Senate GOP to try to filibuster their own damn bill - that is, if they can't keep a handful of Republicans from invoking cloture.

[Terralthra]

If they do that, the bill goes back to the House for approval, which it likely wouldn't get.

[Broomstick]

Zaune, if they actually go through with this shit and crash the economy hard core then the world goes with us. The US holds too much influence on the world economy to say "Let them deal see their idea is shitty." If they actually crash the economy it'll be an actual Great Depression 2.0. As much as I'm sick of how things are being run at this point, I don't truly believe there's any gain to be had by destroying everything.

I'm not wild about the idea either, but maybe that's what it's going to take to change the status quo. Goodness knows we haven't had much luck with what's already been tried.

How nice.

You do realize that hundreds of thousands of people will be out of work without pay during a government shut down? The shut down in the Clinton years resulted in 800,000+ people out of work during the shut down. That's not counting Federal contractors, who also won't get paid.

You do realize the military won't be paid during this time? They will be issued IOU's - good luck paying the bills or buying food with those.

I suppose we can live without all the national parks and monuments for the duration of the shutdown.

On the other hand... defunding Obamacare would leave about 8 million (or more) people without health insurance come January 1st. Including my household. Which will cause considerable suffering to my spouse as we will not be able to afford his maintenance medication.

I'm rather divided on this -in the Clinton years the government shutdown was almost a non-event for most Americans, even if it was disruptive for government employees and contractors and mucked up a few other things. But the economy was a hell of a lot better back then and right now things are precarious enough without the added impact of this sort of nonsense.

[Zaune]

I'm fully aware of that, actually. In fact I thought it might be slightly... well, "worse" isn't quite the word in this context, but more serious than that because I've a hazy idea that federal taxes subsidise a fair chunk of state and county law-enforcement budgets as well. Which would quite effectively balance out the problem of all those extra people being unemployed because there'd be nothing much to stop them simply taking what they needed.

And yes, I know it'd be ugly. I just think the alternative -a Beige Dictatorship that's showing signs of mutating into something actively malevolent- is a damn sight worse.

[Broomstick]

Look, I know things are far from perfect, but degenerating into open conflict is so goddamned ugly I'm going to resist the notion for quite awhile. I don't relish enduring the sort of upheaval you seem to cheerleading.

[Zaune]

I don't blame you for that; hell, not so long ago I was saying the same thing. (Your accounts of what your life was like before you got hired at the shoe shop played no small part in hardening my views, by the way, take that as you will.)

But I am done arguing that the situation isn't bad enough to justify thinking the unthinkable. Maybe doing the unthinkable, though I'd like to think it won't come to that.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I need to know whats going on in that brain of yours Zaune... I really do..

Please PLEASE lay out ofr me the sort of "Fantasy" you see happening if the government shuts down and all hell breaks loose..
Please connect the dots from there, to people saying "OH WOW! I am SO glad that happened!"

[Dominus Atheos]

...because I've a hazy idea that federal taxes subsidise a fair chunk of state and county law-enforcement budgets as well.

Not really, no. There may be grants to provide local police with new equipment, but cops walking the beat are AFAIK completely locally funded.

Here is Wikipedia's version of what may be shut down:

A federal government shutdown causes a large number of civilian federal employees to be furloughed. Military personnel are not furloughed, but may not be paid as scheduled.[3][4]

The exact details of which government functions would stop during a shutdown is determined by the Office of Management and Budget.[5] However, some specific aspects have applied to all shutdowns in the past. Among these is the closure of national parks and passport offices.[6] "Emergency personnel" continue to be employed, including the military, border agents, doctors and nurses working in federal hospitals, and air traffic controllers.[7] Members of Congress continue to be paid, because their pay cannot be altered except by direct law.[8] Mail delivery is not affected as it is self-funded.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown

[Simon_Jester]

Also bear in mind that there are a lot of possible outcomes of a long term shutdown besides "The Masses (TM) revolt and overthrow the rich by taking their stuff, despite the fact that most of a rich guy's "stuff" takes the form of electronic blips in a bank record or a brokerage firm's computer banks."

For example, not paying the army might cause them to revolt. Not paying certain regulatory agencies might result in their key staff quitting to work elsewhere, making them ineffective when the funding tap is turned back on.

[Irbis]

Please PLEASE lay out ofr me the sort of "Fantasy" you see happening if the government shuts down and all hell breaks loose...

How about the fantasy of: low- and middle-class imbeciles voting Republicans in the name of "fiscal responsibility" see how it would look like not only in Fox News 1%-funded fantasies, but in real life, and stop voting for these assholes? Or even if not that, the blackmail stops working and can't be used next time?

You know, to everyone opposing calling their bluff, this time it's healthcare vs shutdown. What is next time it will be more? Where you draw the line? What thing is worth saying "no, you're going too far"?

[Zaune]

I need to know whats going on in that brain of yours Zaune... I really do.

You'd be much, much happier not knowing.

Also bear in mind that there are a lot of possible outcomes of a long term shutdown besides "The Masses (TM) revolt and overthrow the rich by taking their stuff, despite the fact that most of a rich guy's "stuff" takes the form of electronic blips in a bank record or a brokerage firm's computer banks."

For example, not paying the army might cause them to revolt. Not paying certain regulatory agencies might result in their key staff quitting to work elsewhere, making them ineffective when the funding tap is turned back on.

The outcome I'm actually hoping for is "the rich decide that sacrificing some of their wealth and power reasonable price to pay for avoiding riots, spree-killings and possibly a Communist insurgency, and back down before the shit really hits the fan."

[Forgothrax]

Zaune, unless things got extremely bad extremely quickly, do you seriously think any of the above would occur in numbers sufficient to actually threaten the wealthy? A Federal shutdown would not impair the capacity of local governments to disperse riots, and spree shootings won't actually be a threat to the wealthy. A communist insurgency seems unlikely in the extreme as well-- I have no idea how you pulled that one out of your ass. At worst, the wealthy flee the country for a short period of time while the police and the national guard quell riots forcibly and then we're back to the status quo until an election.

I must say that the glee you show for the blood and suffering of others is at best disturbing as well.

[Simon_Jester]

Please PLEASE lay out ofr me the sort of "Fantasy" you see happening if the government shuts down and all hell breaks loose...

How about the fantasy of: low- and middle-class imbeciles voting Republicans in the name of "fiscal responsibility" see how it would look like not only in Fox News 1%-funded fantasies, but in real life, and stop voting for these assholes? Or even if not that, the blackmail stops working and can't be used next time?

You know, to everyone opposing calling their bluff, this time it's healthcare vs shutdown. What is next time it will be more? Where you draw the line? What thing is worth saying "no, you're going too far"?

I may have misunderstood the issue, but it sounds to me like the House has simply passed a bill saying "either we shutdown or you repeal universal health care." The appropriate response would be for the Senate and President to say "fuck you" and refuse to pass the bill, which puts the ball back in the House's court. I suspect that the House is posturing here, and that this will be the end of it.

The repeated screaming matches over the debt ceiling, and the Republicans' refusal to be responsible about the issue, have I think done just about as much to reduce their popularity as an actual government shutdown would. It's not like there are more than a tiny number of Americans left who have any respect for Congress.

The other consequence of hitting the debt ceiling would make things worse- since it would impair the US government's ability to borrow money in the future- but would not have much effect on public opinion because it's too abstract; we wouldn't notice the consequences because the only people who deal with them directly are Treasury functionaries.


I suspect that the desperate attempts to lock down the government as a way of getting attention will turn out in the history books to be a sort of... self-limiting tactic. The Republicans in Congress have been doing it because their base has an ideological need to see them fighting Big Bad Government and Big Bad Secret Terrormuslimatheistapologeticist Obama. The problem is that it makes them look like a bunch of irrelevant boneheads to other people. The Republicans gained 63 seats in 2010, and were starting to lose them again (in small numbers) in 2012. I don't think they're going to win any fresh popularity contests by continuing the budget hysteria, and I don't think there's any urgent need to humor them because their own leadership has to know that shooting themselves in the foot harder won't gain them anything in the long run.

The 2010 election was a referendum on Obamacare and Obama's handling of the recession. Since the recession was still on and lots of paranoid idiots were whipped up about Obamacare, the referendum did not go well for the Democrats.

The 2012 election was a sort of combined referendum on Obama personally, on the choice of Romney to oppose him, and on the Congressional Republicans. Democrats won points, albeit narrowly.

The 2014 election is still up in the air- but if the Republicans choose to make it a referendum on their choice of signature tactics like "provoke endless budget crises," they're going to lose.

[Beowulf]

...because I've a hazy idea that federal taxes subsidise a fair chunk of state and county law-enforcement budgets as well.

Not really, no. There may be grants to provide local police with new equipment, but cops walking the beat are AFAIK completely locally funded.

Some cops are paid with federal law enforcement grants. LA Times has more details on examples.