Sorry I Just Don't Understand the US System of Government Sometimes

[Tropicana]

Hours away from shutdown, House GOP not backing down

With hours left to avert a government shutdown, House Republicans on Monday said that they're unwilling to let go of their insistence that a government spending bill include language to dismantle parts of the Affordable Care Act."What our members want is fairness for the American people," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters. He argued that since President Obama has delayed the health care law's employer mandate, the individual mandate should be delayed for a year as well.
Boehner said he will bring a bill to the floor Monday that delays the individual mandate, even though the Democratic-led Senate has already rejected such a proposal twice. The latest House bill will also eliminate federal subsidies for congressional staff to buy health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.

• [*=left]On the verge of a government shutdown: Now what?
  [*=left]What happens if the government shuts down?

Asked whether the House could vote any time today on a spending bill without the Obamacare amendments, Boehner said, "That's not going to happen."
Congress now has less than 10 hours before authorized government spending runs out and some federal operations shut down" President Obama later Monday afternoon chided House Republicans for using federal funding to negotiate over Obamacare, calling it "the height of irresponsibility."
"You don't get to extract a ransom for doing your job, for doing what you're supposed to be doing anyway," Mr. Obama said.
He pointed out that in the event of a government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go to work without pay while several hundred thousand will be furloughed without pay.
"I think it's important everybody understand the federal government is America's largest employer," he said. "A shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away."
He also pointed out that, regardless of what Congress does, the major parts of the Affordable Care Act will stay intact. In fact, open enrollment will begin on the Obamacare exchanges Tuesday no matter what.
"You can't shut it down," the president said.
In spite of the current stalemate, Mr. Obama said he is confident "in the 11th hour once again Congress will do the right thing."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605324/reid-to-boehner-stop-trying-to-force-a-shutdown/#!

These people clearly haven't got a clue what they are doing.

[Tropicana]

What happens if the government shuts down?

Congress is moving closer to passing a bill that to keep the government running, but it hasn't crossed the finish line yet.

The Senate should pass a bill to keep the government open for a few months on Friday, after taking a series of procedural votes -- including a vote to strip out language to defund Obamacare. At that point, it will go back to the House, where Republican leaders must decide whether to accept the legislation as it stands or amend it again. Whatever they decide, the Senate and House must come to an agreement on one bill before Tuesday, otherwise the federal government partially shuts down.
"I've made it clear now for months and month and months," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio,said Thursday. "We have no interest in seeing a government shutdown. But we've got to address the spending problems that we have in this town. And so there will be options available to us. There's not going to be any speculation about what we're going to do or not do until the Senate passes their bill."
If Congress fails to send President Obama a bill before Tuesday, the outcome would impact the economy, though not catastrophically. There have been brief gaps in government funding before, as well as two government shutdowns in 1995-1996that stemmed from partisan budget battles similar to today's problems. The government shut down for five days in November 1995 when President Clinton and the GOP-led Congress were at odds over government spending, and it shut down again in December for 21 days. According to government estimates, those shutdowns cost taxpayers $1.4 billion.

• [*=left]House Republicans shift Obamacare demands to next fiscal fight
  [*=left]Constant deadlines create crisis mode in Congress

When there's a funding lapse, federal operations only partially shut down.
Programs deemed essential -- like air traffic control systems, Medicare, and food inspections -- would keep running. The U.S. Postal Service is self-funded, so operations would continue uninterrupted.
Still, millions of federal workers deemed non-essential would be furloughed with no guarantee of back-pay. Social Security checks and veterans' benefits would still go to recipients, but they could go out late, since there would be fewer workers to process them. Additionally, passport and visa applications could be put on hold, as well as small business and home mortgage lending programs. National parks and museums would be closed.
While monuments in Washington would be closed, the Capitol building would stay open. Congress is exempted from the furloughs, though some lawmakers could protest that rule.
Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said in a statement Wednesday that if there is a funding lapse, he will not accept any pay for the duration of the shutdown and will donate any salary he receives to local charities.
"Michigan families work hard and when they don't go to work, they don't get paid, and the same should hold for Congress," he said. "When political gridlock undermines our economic uncertainty and makes it harder for Michigan middle class families and small businesses, it's not a game - it's bad faith."
When Congress came close to a shutdown in 2011, a number of lawmakers made the same pledge, including Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., as well as Reps. John Carney, D-Del., and Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.
The bill to fund the government this time around has largely stalled because conservatives want to use the legislation to defund Obamacare. However, funding the most significant parts of Obamacare will effectively remain in place unless the entire law is repealed. Even if Congress fails to authorize spending by Oct. 1, the government has plenty of other sources of funding to draw from to keep the law in place. A large portion of the Affordable Care Act is funded with mandatory spending -- which Congress is required by law to keep up unless the law is repealed -- as well as multi-year funds still available in the event of a government shutdown.
"It appears that substantial ACA implementation might continue during a lapse in annual appropriations that resulted in a temporary government shutdown," the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a July report.

Why does this always have to come down to the eleventh hour?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604894/what-happens-if-the-government-shuts-down/

[My Looh]

They want to do everything in their power to make the president look weak. That is the only way the Republicans/Tea Party have of of making themselves look favourable. It is a phucked up system to be sure.

I like the idea of checks and balances but sometimes it is used in a way that is over the top.

I can be equally critical of the Parliamentary system however. I hate the idea that a party that holds a majority can do as they wish with little opposition.

[lonewolf]

They want to do everything in their power to make the president look weak. That is the only way the Republicans/Tea Party have of of making themselves look favourable. It is a phucked up system to be sure.

I like the idea of checks and balances but sometimes it is used in a way that is over the top.

I can be equally critical of the Parliamentary system however. I hate the idea that a party that holds a majority can do as they wish with little opposition.

He makes himself look weak. A true leader is able to reach out to the opposition. A true leader is a problem solver. He has a problem with leadership. He is a terrible leader and head of state.

The system is good. It's worked fine all these years. Funny thing, how many other presidents have had problems of this magnitude? NONE! Obama is the problem.

[RichD]

The system is good. It's worked fine all these years. Funny thing, how many other presidents have had problems of this magnitude? NONE! Obama is the problem.

I seem to recall similar event happening in 1995 and 1996 when Clinton was president. but then i'm not in the US so it might have been just anti US propaganda in the Canadian media

[Tropicana]

I seem to recall similar event happening in 1995 and 1996 when Clinton was president. but then i'm not in the US so it might have been just anti US propaganda in the Canadian media

[Tropicana]

Oh so what we are reading in Canada about the Republicans being responsible for the current crisis is just left wing or what is it dat people call it dung deh "liberal" propaganda. Never knew.

[Wahalla]

attempts by legislature to stymie the president...

The history of the filibuster, in one graph

Posted by Ezra Klein at 05:11 PM ET, 05/15/2012

• 
  19
• 
  Share to Facebook
• 
  Share on Twitter
• 
  Add to PersonalPost
• More

I want to spend another moment on this great graph Todd Lindeman worked up for my column on the constitutionality of the filibuster.

(Graph: Todd Lindeman; Data: Senate.gov)
What you’re seeing here are the number of “cloture” motions in every congressional session since 1919. Cloture is the procedure used to break a filibuster. Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate. Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes. As you can see, the majority is having to try and break many, many, many more filibusters than ever before.
This is an imperfect measure. On the one hand, it’s susceptible to changes in congressional strategy: If the majority begins trying to break the filibuster more often, you could see more cloture votes, even though the filibuster isn’t actually being used any more frequently. On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming — simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time — or because they won’t win it.
That said, it is, at least, a relatively consistent measure, and it’s the best one we have. And most observers agree that its basic point is correct: We’re seeing many more filibusters today than we ever did before. But I actually think that’s the wrong way to think about it.
The issue today isn’t that we see 50, or 100, or 150 filibusters. It’s that the filibuster is a constant where it used to be a rarity. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be called “the filibuster”: It has nothing to do with talking, or holding the floor. It should be called the 60-vote requirement. It applies to everything now even when the minority does not specifically choose to invoke it. There are no longer, to my knowledge, categories of bills that don’t get filibustered because such things are simply not done, though there are bills that the minority chooses not to invoke their 60-vote option on. That’s why Harry Reid says things like “60 votes are required for just about everything,” though there are a small number of bills where the majority uses the budget reconciliation process to short-circuit the 60-vote requirement.
An interesting implication of this graph: The filibuster has become more common even as it’s become easier to break. Until 1917, the filibuster couldn’t be stopped. And until 1975, you needed two-thirds of the Senate, rather than three-fifths. So as it’s become less powerful, it’s become more common. What that means is that the rise of the filibuster is largely about “norms” in the Senate. It didn’t become more effective and thus more popular. It actually became less effective, but parties chose to use it more.
There’s an interesting question around exactly when this change in norms happened. If you look at the graph, you have three major moments of discontinuity. One, around 1972, that appears to provoke reform of the filibuster rules so cloture is easier to achieve. Another, in the early 1990s, that seems covers the latter half of George H.W. Bush’s administration and the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency. And then the practice absolutely skyrockets when Barack Obama takes office.
We can argue about why there were these jumps. But their long-term effect seems to be to raise the bar permanently. Every time filibustering becomes much more common, it pretty much remains at that level, even as Congress and the White House changes hands. So the filibuster becomes more common under Bill Clinton, but remains almost that common under George W. Bush.
For more on the filibuster, here’s Greg Koger making the case that it’s clearly constitutional. Jonathan Bernstein agrees with him. Here’s more from Common Cause on their lawsuit.

[Gen]

from ny paper

[Blackstar*]

Tropi, this is how US government works:

[Tropicana]

Got it.

I wonder if people will remember this during mid term elections.

Major millionaires and billionaires bank rolled the tea party candidates. Some of them got in and are wreaking havoc.

I would tell you who told me that but it would be name dropping.

[Emperah]

1385596_658018390878065_2018532223_n.jpg

[My Looh]

The President formulated Obamacare during his first term and the electorate put him back in power for a second term. So what the Republicans/Tea Party is doing now is going against the will of the majority of American people who voted to institute Obamacare.

This just makes me sick! I wonder what it is about this president that makes the Repubs think they are so much more in tune with what Americans want?

As it turns out, Reverend Wright had it right all along.

[Tropicana]

Can President Obama use executive orders to fund Government until an agreement is reached?

[Blackstar*]

The President formulated Obamacare during his first term and the electorate put him back in power for a second term. So what the Republicans/Tea Party is doing now is going against the will of the majority of American people who voted to institute Obamacare.

This just makes me sick! I wonder what it is about this president that makes the Repubs think they are so much more in tune with what Americans want?

As it turns out, Reverend Wright had it right all along.

Yes, Rev. Wright was spot on, but *we* knew that all along.