this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
52 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19149 readers
3629 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Half a dozen House Republicans announced a deal on Sunday to temporarily fund the government with the goal of averting a shutdown at the end of the month. But it’s far from certain that the proposal would unite their fractious conference to send a bill to the Senate, where it is expected to get rejected.

The short-term funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, would keep the government running until Oct. 31 and trigger a one percent cut to current fiscal levels, according to the plan released just before lawmakers are to be briefed Sunday evening.

The one percent cut is an average for the budget. The Defense Department and Veterans Affairs would not receive any cuts while the rest of the government would see an immediate 8 percent cut until the end of October.

The effort is meant to garner support from hard-right lawmakers who demanded significant cuts to support a short-term funding extension.

The continuing resolution would also include a border security bill House Republicans passed through their narrow ranks earlier this year, except for a divisive policy on E-Verify work requirements. The deal also includes important provisions on the border that will be added to the Homeland Security appropriations bill in an effort to extract concessions from the Senate on the issue when both chambers eventually negotiate on funding the government for a full fiscal year.

Striking an apparent deal is a significant, albeit small, step for the House Republican conference, which saw itself devolve into chaos last week after its leadership was unable to wrangle enough votes for a Defense Department funding bill or a pathway to fund the government in the short term.

While many involved in the deal are telegraphing that these parameters should ensure that the bill gets the necessary 218 Republican votes to pass, several of the conservative demands are likely to be rejected by the Senate. That would pit both chambers against each other with less than a dozen days to spare to prevent a partial government shutdown.

The proposal was not negotiated by leadership. Instead, six House Republican members from two of the five ideological factions — Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), Stephanie I. Bice (R-Okla.) and Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) from the pragmatic Main Street Caucus, and Freedom Caucus Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Chip Roy (R-Tex.) and Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) — met for two-and-a-half hours Wednesday night to hash out parameters of a potential agreement, after far-right lawmakers prevented a floor vote funding the Defense Department until demands from leadership were met.

Lawmakers from the conservative flanks of the conference realized that they needed to find consensus and propose a deal to leadership, who were not involved in crafting the proposal. Negotiations continued for four more days, with all five ideological groups in the conference buying into the plan over the weekend.

While the deal is expected to appease a significant amount of conservatives, including several in the House Freedom Caucus, Republican leaders now face the difficult task of ensuring the bill passes through their razor-thin margins. Given the conservative provisions included in the proposal, Democrats are not expected to help pass the bill.

The first test for leaders will be a vote on a procedural hurdle, known as the rule, which sets parameters for debating the bill on the floor before passage. Members of the Freedom Caucus and lawmakers against McCarthy have previously threatened voting against the rule, which traditionally only passes with the majority party’s votes.

The GOP conference began the year with only five votes to spare, but is now down to four after the retirement of Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) last week. Further complicating the math is that a few other Republicans are battling illnesses, and two more are at home with newborn children.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NocturnalMorning 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When the government shuts down because they can't agree on how to fund it, that should trigger an immediate election for all seats.

If I decided to just not pay my bills, things would go to collections, and I'd have debt collectors calling me day and night. There is no excuse for threatening to shut down the government.

[–] Prox 4 points 1 year ago

Ehh... this probably wouldn't do anything but waste more time and money. Must people are satisfied with their Congressional representation and they feel like everyone else elected idiots, so they would just vote the same people back in.

Truth is, any automatic measure would be weaponized immediately, meaning we need to pick the least-damaging weapon. I'd nominate the idea that last year's budget is automatically reenacted on 1 Oct, with inflation-level increases across the board. Basically, "keep doing what we're doing unless Congress can agree on something else."