4 ms·
Not expiring is a big deal, it is a lot different for Congress to have to affirmatively act to change the law, rather than the law expiring on a certain date if
by mobilefriendly 11y ago
Not expiring is a big deal, it is a lot different for Congress to have to affirmatively act to change the law, rather than the law expiring on a certain date if Congress does nothing.
- gozur88 11y agoBut that's no difference, in practice. Congress usually groups renewals for all that sunset stuff into one bill and votes on it without discussion. It's very rare for them to actually allow a law to expire, and usually when it happens there's the same sort of big fight you'd expect over a bill to explicitly repeal whatever it is.
- rtpg 11y agoit can end up being pretty different different. Think about every renewal to the Bush-era tax cuts... until it didn't happen. The time-bomb aspect of the laws cause a different negotiation dynamic
- gozur88 11y agoIt looks different, but the point is if there aren't enough votes to renew something there will be enough to explicitly kill it.
- rtpg 11y agoRight, if the vote comes up there's no difference. There's a higher activation energy required to bring up the vote if there's no sunset though
- fanzhang 11y agoIs that actually true? If Congress approves X by 51% but the president opposes X, then the default stays. In this case defaults have real meaning. There must be other system asymmetries as well: filibusters, what else?
- gozur88 11y agoNah, they just roll it into an omnibus spending bill. The president isn't going to veto a small-ish bill like that if it means shutting off funding to the VA.