Shutdown Stupidity
Here we go again.
AP (“Government shutdown draws closer as congressional leaders head to the White House“):
Democratic and Republican congressional leaders are heading to the White House for a meeting with President Donald Trump on Monday in a late effort to avoid a government shutdown, but both sides have shown hardly any willingness to budge from their entrenched positions.
If government funding legislation isn’t passed by Congress and signed by Trump on Tuesday night, many government offices across the nation will be temporarily shuttered and nonexempt federal employees will be furloughed, adding to the strain on workers and the nation’s economy.
White House aides, ahead of the meeting, made it clear the Republican administration had no intention to negotiate.
“The president wants to keep the government open, he wants to keep the government funded,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at the White House on Monday morning, adding Trump was “giving Democrats one last chance to be reasonable today.”
Republicans are daring Democrats to vote against legislation that would keep government funding mostly at current levels, but Democrats have held firm. They’re using one of their few points of leverage to demand Congress take up legislation to extend health care benefits.
“The meeting is a first step, but only a first step. We need a serious negotiation,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Trump has shown little interest in entertaining Democrats’ demands on health care, even as he agreed to hold a sit-down meeting Monday with Schumer, along with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. The Republican president has said repeatedly he fully expects the government to enter a shutdown this week.
“If it has to shut down, it’ll have to shut down,” Trump said Friday. “But they’re the ones that are shutting down government.”
[…]
Democrats are pushing for an extension to Affordable Care Act tax credits that have subsidized health insurance for millions of people since the COVID-19 pandemic. The credits, which are designed to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people, are set to expire at the end of the year.
At a Monday news conference, Jeffries, a New York Democrat, called health care cuts a “five-alarm fire” that is rippling across communities nationwide.
“We’re not going to simply go along to get along with a Republican bill that continues to gut the health care of everyday Americans who are already living with this Trump economy, where costs aren’t going down but they’re going up,” he said.
CBS News (“Trump confident ahead of Monday showdown, says Democrats’ position makes shutdown likely: ‘I just don’t know how we’re going to solve this issue’“):
President Trump said Sunday that a government shutdown is likely unless top Democrats back down from their negotiating position.
“I just don’t know how we are going to solve this issue,” Mr. Trump said in a phone interview with CBS News.
[…]
A source close to Mr. Trump told CBS News that the president privately welcomes the prospect of a shutdown because it will enable him to wield executive power to slash some government programs and salaries.
Last week, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to federal agencies telling them to prepare layoff plans if there is a government shutdown.
The memo, obtained by CBS News, tells agencies to consider reduction-in-force notices — a federal term for layoffs — for employees in programs, projects or activities that have discretionary funding that stops on Oct. 1 or that don’t have any alternative sources of funding. It also goes further and says that employees should get RIF notices if they’re in programs or projects “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”
[…]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, told “Face the Nation” Sunday that “Democrats are united in pushing” on the health-care issue, adding that she’s glad the president has decided to meet with leaders in Congress.
“This is an opportunity for the country because of one big problem, and that is that the Republicans have created a health care crisis,” Klobuchar said. “My constituents, Americans, are standing on a cliff right now with these insurance premium increases that are upon them.”
POLITICO (“Federal workers unions call on Schumer, Jeffries to hold the line even if it means a shutdown“):
A coalition of federal unions are calling on Democratic leadership to fight back against budget cuts to “critical public services,” even if it leads to a government shutdown and mass layoffs.
In a letter to minority leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Federal Unionists Network and 35 local, council and national unions urged the Democrats to reject any proposal that cuts health care, social security, Veterans’ Affairs and scientific agencies.
“We are directly impacted when the government shuts down: our members would no longer be able to work, get paid, or fulfill their mission of serving the American public,” the letter states. “But we believe the most important thing is fighting against the centralization of executive power and for the long-term survival of the critical services the federal government provides, even if that means allowing the government to temporarily shut down.”
[…]
“A government shutdown is never Plan A,” the letter states. “Federal workers and the communities we serve will face severe hardship. But federal workers will willingly forego paychecks in the hopes of preserving the programs we have devoted our lives to administering. In order to save our services today, we need to send a message to this Administration that enough is enough.”
By all indications, both sides are perfectly willing to force a shutdown in the hope that the other side is forced to cave. There’s zero indication that either side is willing to budge.
Whether an obscure subsidy enacted during COVID is the right hill to die on politically remains to be seen. The unions have what strikes me as a more essential and sellable message: the ability to continue their Congressionally-established mission.
Obviously, that doesn’t happen during a shutdown. And, as Binyamin Appelbaum rightly notes, the impact often lingers well beyond the immediate timeline.
Repeated disruptions to the F.A.A.’s funding over the past 15 years, caused by shutdowns and other budget fights, have played a key role in preventing the agency from hiring and training enough controllers. As Congress lurches and sways toward another potential shutdown, the F.A.A.’s travails illustrate the stakes.
Shutdowns tend to be brief because Americans are soon reminded that the government does important things. But the end of a shutdown doesn’t mean that everything springs back to normal. Some of the damage endures. A government shutdown in 2013 wiped out the annual research season for the U.S. Antarctic Program, causing more than two dozen scientific studies to lose a year of data. Another shutdown, beginning in December 2018, forced the cancellation of about 86,000 immigration court hearings, some of which took years to reschedule. During that shutdown, unsupervised tourists cut down Joshua trees in Joshua Tree National Park. The slow-growing trees can take 50 years to reach full height.
The funding disruptions are particularly difficult for the F.A.A. It takes years to train air traffic controllers, and there are limits on how many can be trained at one time. When the pipeline isn’t fed, the agency falls behind — and you end up stuck in the wrong city.
Adding to the frustration is how completely unnecessary it all is. While Congress would, in an ideal world, simply pass budgets on time on an annual basis, I get that standoffs are the only way for the minority party to gain leverage to gain concessions. But there’s no reason that the government has to shut down during the standoff.
Indeed, there was no such thing until Jimmy Carter’s attorney general decided that operating in the absence of a budget violated the Antideficiency Act. Given that it has long been the custom—and since 2019 has been federal law—that federal employees are given full back pay once the budget is passed, the government is already obligated. So, either the AG could simply issue a new interpretation of the law or Congress could amend it.
As it is, not only do taxpayers lose access to services they’re paying for—including things like access to national parks and monuments to which they may have already traveled—but they have to pay for the service they’re not getting. Indeed, since employees on travel are often required to return to their home station, usually at increased expense, it actually costs them more.
Personally, I think the budget and appropriations are the least important aspect of this fight. Sure, the Democrats are using the very real impact on healthcare costs for many millions of people as leverage but there are so many other policy issues to fight over and very little leverage available with which to use that there is very little choice. When Trump sent in a recission package that cut budget items that were just passed. that was a line that was crossed. The abuse of passed laws like Posse Comitatus, Enemy Aliens Act, Insurrection Act, among others are other crossed lines that necessitate a fight. No, I would be far more hard ass and demand huge concessions. Because you are not going to get anything unless demanded.
Schumer was right in the Spring: Democrats are not for shutdowns, for the reasons Applebaum lays out. That’s the hill to die on. Now, the immature and intellectually lazy “DO SOMETHING!!11!!” ninnies on our side — who he courageously stared down before, with no support — have him spooked, unsurprisingly.
I do wish more elected Democrats had more guts. Not the guts to fight unfocused in all directions — rather the guts to assert their own instincts as individuals who stepped into the area and got elected. Rather than catering to pundits and slactivists who a) don’t like the Democratic Party, and/or b) haven’t run or won any race anywhere, couldn’t be elected dog catcher if they did run, but are convinced having a keyboard and a data plan makes them expert strategists.
Dem politicians should not led around by those who can’t be bothered to reliably support Democrats when the chips are down (but they’ll toss off a pro-shutdown think piece or show up to scream at a town hall ex post facto, of course).
Joyner is correct: this destructive shutdown idiocy needs to be stopped for good — by statute, lawsuit, DOJ memo, or legislative procedure.
Paul Krugman has a piece on the effects of the end of ACA subsidies on premiums on his substack today.
One huge question in all of this is whether or not OPM will go through with its saber-rattling about mass layoffs. Based on my understanding, those layoffs would be unlawful, but that hasn’t stopped this administration in the past.
This reporting hits on that exact contradiction:
You just don’t know, and unfortunately with this administration you can count on them taking the worst and most costly option when it comes to these types of decisions.
If the economy was humming along and inflation was down and unemployment down, *phasing out* the subsidy might not be a bad idea. However, there are a few groups that are now heavily dependent on subsidized ACA coverage: small business owners, people forced into early retirement because of downsizing/layoffs, and the self-employed. None of these groups are going to be able to manage the massive increases in monthly payments that abruptly shutting off the subsidies will result in, meaning…a lot more uninsured people and a further hollowing out of the ACA.
This is BAD timing.
@DK: I don’t understand something here. Any shutdown that happens is squarely on the republicans by virtue of majorities. Last time he was weak. Schumer needs to be strong, not weak, this time and get something for the dems. I don’t want a shutdown, it will be bad for everyone. I also don’t want dems to cave unless they get something. They are the minority, but if the republicans want one single dem vote they need to give a lot for those votes. Lets not forget that this continual fight was never an issue 15 or so years ago. It was the minority republicans that figured out they can control the dems with this fight. Now, dems need to reverse it on them. All the bad consequences of a shutdown belong to Trump, who doesn’t seen to know the art of a deal from his own….[you fill in the blank].
The Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court.
The Dems should not do a fucking thing. This is the GOP’s problem.
They shouldn’t have even went to the White House. Trump and his ilk cannot be trusted.
I’m sure, after the meeting, they’ll send out a few strongly worded letters.
Americans voted for his. Let them feel the pain.
@EddieInCA: This is what’s driving me crazy.
THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER HERE.
The news article implies that there is some sort of power sharing thing happening and that the Ds are holding out against the Rs to make things happen.
This is 100% on the Republicans.
Full stop.
Liberals have a tendency to forget the P Word: Power. Power is everything. We don’t have it.
But as long as I don’t have to renew my passport, fuck it, give nothing, shut it down. I’ll be interested to see if Trump is still handing out TACOs.
@Michael Reynolds: “But as long as I don’t have to renew my passport,”
I renewed mine this summer, just in case they were planning on rolling out new ones with yellow stars on them next year. Signed up to start collecting Social Security right after the election.
The less my life intersects with these monsters the better.
Isn’t the problem the need for at least 8 Democratic senators to provide cloture?
@HelloWorld:
The last thing Democrats need to do is emulate the party of nihilism, pathological lying, white supremacy, and fascism. Modern Republicans are not a model for anybody to copy.
We have one party of immature, unserious 70-year-old children. We don’t need two.
And BTW, adering to unpopular principles that protect the poorest Americans *is* strength. Throwing tantrums that punish everybody when you can’t have your way is what lazy, weak (“I’m not voting because I only agree with this candidate 70% not 100% percent”) is what lazy, weak, selfish, childish people do. And this kind of shitty allyship has become all too normalized on the left.
@HelloWorld: @Tony W: @EddieInCA: @Michael Reynolds:
They can’t use Reconciliation for this, so they need to be able to invoke cloture. There aren’t 60 Republican Senators, so they need eight Democrats to vote for any package.
@Kathy: @James Joyner: Dumping the filibuster either entirely or for a more limited topic like budget bills is a simple procedural matter — so long as Thune can hold together 50 votes. I have previously said I didn’t think the VP got to break procedural ties, but I was wrong about that.
@James Joyner:
Free market economics suggest when one party has something a second party desperately needs, can’t get from anyone else, and on a deadline to boot, the first party ought to charge a very high price in order to provide it.
More so if the need for it doesn’t pass along with the deadline. After all, shutting down the government does not solve the funding issue, it only makes it more urgent to resolve.
If it were me, I’d offer cloture for a high but reasonable price, say an arm. With the proviso that if the GQP wants it later when the shutdown pressure becomes unbearable, I’ll charge more, say an arm and a leg.
And then the price will only keep going up.
Of course, the above presupposes the Republiqans will be blamed by a majority of the population, and in particular a majority of likely midterm voters. This is not certain at all. If they don’t, then my play would backfire.
Why can’t they use reconciliation on this? This is what reconciliation is for – passing budgets. They get two of them a year. Also, they make the rules. So they could just change the rules. So why aren’t they using it?
@Jay L. Gischer:
Because post-Ford Republicans hate government, don’t care about the vulnerable, and thus would just as soon see government shutdown as keep it open by getting rid of the awful, archaic procedural filibuster.
Should that filibuster die it would be the most positive development yet of the Trump presidencies.
@wr:
I think I’m good til 2029. I’m sort of vaguely considering a second passport. A quarter mil gets you St. Lucia, (wife and kids under 30 too) no residency requirement, and it’s good for Schengen visits, Sao Tome is much cheaper but I think it’s not good for much.
@Jay L. Gischer: Up to three per year. The real limitation is that each of revenue, expenditures, and the debt can only appear in one bill. The reconciliation bill earlier this year hit all three of those, so no more bills were allowed.
@Michael Reynolds: Is it that cheap? I was looking at Malta, but they are three times that and there’s the pesky quasi-residency requirement.
And it’s hard to give up San Diego weather.
@Tony W: I think Michael got in under the wire, Portugal is changing a bunch of the rules for visas. The 250K (euros) is an investment in cultural arts fund or you can invest 500K euros in a qualified investment fund. Real estate is no longer included (locals are NOT happy about the property cost increases). We are looking at the D7 requirements, which are much lower but require residency, and we both have aging parents so that might not be a wise idea (if we need to get back to the states to deal with prolonged illnesses, etc., that would count against the minimum required days). The taxes are set to go up for expats: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/portugal-to-hit-expats-with-higher-property-taxes/
Also, I detest the heat and it gets HOT there. We’re still looking at the UK too, which is more my temperature range but the aging parents aspect persists.
@James Joyner: If the dems don’t force a shutdown then whats the deterrent for the next showdown? They have a good foundation of why we are in this predicament and if they don’t let the republicans fail at running the government then the next time this vote happens it will unfold just like it always does. Maybe it will infuse some bi-partisainship back into the process.
@HelloWorld: I tend to agree with Ezra Klein and others that forcing a shutdown made sense BUT that they needed a coherent message on why they’re doing it. I don’t think they landed on one. Regardless, I’m just explaining why Democratic votes are needed: Republicans can’t do this on their own, even notwithstanding that Rand Paul isn’t going to vote for the package.
@James Joyner: Feeling similar in that a shutdown lays ground to point out why and what the negative impact will be to ALL Americans, especially rural Americans Healthcare costs etc…by not trying to stand up for them at this point in time. But make it short and move on. A few Dems already broke with the party. Better to shutdown briefly, EFFECTIVELY convey your reasons, and move on. When all those rural Trump voters see their Healthcare costs among other things rising, perhaps can win them over for mid terms.