4 ms·

At the risk of introducing a political topic into this supposedly apolitical subject, why shouldn't any president simply make demands and then shut down the gov

At the risk of introducing a political topic into this supposedly apolitical subject, why shouldn't any president simply make demands and then shut down the government until his/her political opponents cave? Seemingly this strategy will not work ever again for either party if proper steps are taken. It seems like a terrible abuse of executive power.

bluGill 8y ago
Don't blame only the president, congress has just as much blame for not passing a budget the president would agree to.
- MrZongle2 8y ago
  Unfortunately, that logical line of thinking can't fuel the new Two Minutes Hate. It's a shitty situation and I feel sorry for the government workers affected, but there are clearly multiple parties responsible here. If the plight of these workers were a real concern, if it were considered a real crisis, it wouldn't be happening.
- sixothree 8y ago
  They passed this last budget unanimously which means they that 60% more votes than were needed for a veto override.
  - uncoder0 8y ago
    It was a voice vote which always gets marked down as 100-0 or 0-100 in the Senate.
- mdavidn 8y ago
  They did pass a CR back in December. Everyone thought the President would sign it. He changed his mind.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Still partially their fault for thinking the president would. Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as their job is to figure this out in time.
    - lolc 8y ago
      > Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as their job is to figure this out in time. That's the most extravagant line of reasoning I've read in this thread so far. And now my brain is in a knot. I understand you're saying parliament should have proactively made their end of the deal worse because the negotiations were a sham anyway. You realize they're still not willing to do that after negotiations have broken down? In the end you're just blaming them for not having made a different deal earlier. But that wasn't on the table then, and isn't now. So you're just blaming them for not giving in. Which (disregarding the particulars) is a reasonable position. But somehow you've packed it up all weird.
  - PretzelFisch 8y ago
    That was a Republican majority congress as well.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  The president is responsible for attempting to take the power of the purse from congress, and congress (to be more specific, one party) is responsible for not putting him back in his place. If congress caves, it's going to get worse in the future. The next democratic president may hold the gov't hostage to get some sweet, sweet carbon tax passed. Heck, they'd even have a better claim about it being a national emergency.
matt4077 8y ago
Well, obviously this is, in the abstract, a sort of balance. Both sides have that power, and both sides fear being blamed for using it. In any specific case, blame is more likely to fall on the side that demands anything out of the ordinary.
idbehold 8y ago
The problem is that one party wants the government to continue to run while the other doesn't really seem to care. So the strategy only really works for the other party.
Consultant32452 8y ago
The specific power being used here is the presidential veto, which is an important power of the president which is checked by the legislature being able to overrule a veto if they get enough votes. In more calm times they could just pass legislation that would end the concept of government shut downs by funding at the previous rate in the event of a failure to agree to new funding levels. Neither side wants that because it's a good political cudgel.
- zanny 8y ago
  Its not nearly an equal cudgel. Generally the democrats want federal institutions to be in operation while Republicans want to disrupt and defund them. This correlates to 9 of 10 shutdowns (one in Bill Clintons term I'd consider him causing it) being propagated by Republicans on either side of negotiations, often with intent to defund some part of the government with the appropriations bills. Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to blame Democrats - they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college, ending the possibility of shutdowns, or insuring the loophole that let a Republican congress delay voting on a supreme court nominee for a year was closed. They didn't bring any such bills or amendments to the floor in either house and never voted on any of it, so they can't even blame filibusters.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college They had absolutely no way to do that. That would require a constitutional amendment. (There's another way around it where enough states agree to award electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, but that also requires action by the states).
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Short of another convention, the amendment has to start in Congress. So they could have brought it up but chose not to. The interstate compact, on the other hand, has enough signers that it is at least plausibly going to be successful. Though there will be lots of legal challenges if it ever gets used, it's not clear they're allowed to do such a thing.
jeffreyrogers 8y ago
Congress is partly at fault too. They can override a veto with a 2/3 majority.
- nxc18 8y ago
  *One member of congress https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/426668-mcconnell-blocks-bill-to-reopen-most-of-government https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/426668-mcconnell-bloc...
  - softawre 8y ago
    No, because Mitch could be voted out by the rest of congress.
atonse 8y ago
You don't need the president to reopen the government. The spending bill has to be approved by the president. He has 10 days to do so. But if he rejects it, congress can override his decision with a 2/3 vote. So technically the processes are there for this to never happen. The problem is that the process relies on people not having malevolent intentions. But the senate majority leader, and other spineless Republicans afraid of angering Trump's base, are exactly that set of malevolent actors that aren't willing to put country over themselves.

bluGill 8y ago

Don't blame only the president, congress has just as much blame for not passing a budget the president would agree to.

MrZongle2 8y ago
Unfortunately, that logical line of thinking can't fuel the new Two Minutes Hate. It's a shitty situation and I feel sorry for the government workers affected, but there are clearly multiple parties responsible here. If the plight of these workers were a real concern, if it were considered a real crisis, it wouldn't be happening.
sixothree 8y ago
They passed this last budget unanimously which means they that 60% more votes than were needed for a veto override.
- uncoder0 8y ago
  It was a voice vote which always gets marked down as 100-0 or 0-100 in the Senate.
mdavidn 8y ago
They did pass a CR back in December. Everyone thought the President would sign it. He changed his mind.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Still partially their fault for thinking the president would. Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as their job is to figure this out in time.
  - lolc 8y ago
    > Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as their job is to figure this out in time. That's the most extravagant line of reasoning I've read in this thread so far. And now my brain is in a knot. I understand you're saying parliament should have proactively made their end of the deal worse because the negotiations were a sham anyway. You realize they're still not willing to do that after negotiations have broken down? In the end you're just blaming them for not having made a different deal earlier. But that wasn't on the table then, and isn't now. So you're just blaming them for not giving in. Which (disregarding the particulars) is a reasonable position. But somehow you've packed it up all weird.
- PretzelFisch 8y ago
  That was a Republican majority congress as well.
rootusrootus 8y ago
The president is responsible for attempting to take the power of the purse from congress, and congress (to be more specific, one party) is responsible for not putting him back in his place. If congress caves, it's going to get worse in the future. The next democratic president may hold the gov't hostage to get some sweet, sweet carbon tax passed. Heck, they'd even have a better claim about it being a national emergency.

matt4077 8y ago

Well, obviously this is, in the abstract, a sort of balance. Both sides have that power, and both sides fear being blamed for using it. In any specific case, blame is more likely to fall on the side that demands anything out of the ordinary.

idbehold 8y ago

The problem is that one party wants the government to continue to run while the other doesn't really seem to care. So the strategy only really works for the other party.

Consultant32452 8y ago

The specific power being used here is the presidential veto, which is an important power of the president which is checked by the legislature being able to overrule a veto if they get enough votes. In more calm times they could just pass legislation that would end the concept of government shut downs by funding at the previous rate in the event of a failure to agree to new funding levels. Neither side wants that because it's a good political cudgel.

zanny 8y ago
Its not nearly an equal cudgel. Generally the democrats want federal institutions to be in operation while Republicans want to disrupt and defund them. This correlates to 9 of 10 shutdowns (one in Bill Clintons term I'd consider him causing it) being propagated by Republicans on either side of negotiations, often with intent to defund some part of the government with the appropriations bills. Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to blame Democrats - they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college, ending the possibility of shutdowns, or insuring the loophole that let a Republican congress delay voting on a supreme court nominee for a year was closed. They didn't bring any such bills or amendments to the floor in either house and never voted on any of it, so they can't even blame filibusters.
- learc83 8y ago
  >they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college They had absolutely no way to do that. That would require a constitutional amendment. (There's another way around it where enough states agree to award electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, but that also requires action by the states).
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Short of another convention, the amendment has to start in Congress. So they could have brought it up but chose not to. The interstate compact, on the other hand, has enough signers that it is at least plausibly going to be successful. Though there will be lots of legal challenges if it ever gets used, it's not clear they're allowed to do such a thing.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

Congress is partly at fault too. They can override a veto with a 2/3 majority.

nxc18 8y ago
*One member of congress https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/426668-mcconnell-blocks-bill-to-reopen-most-of-government https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/426668-mcconnell-bloc...
- softawre 8y ago
  No, because Mitch could be voted out by the rest of congress.

atonse 8y ago

You don't need the president to reopen the government. The spending bill has to be approved by the president. He has 10 days to do so. But if he rejects it, congress can override his decision with a 2/3 vote. So technically the processes are there for this to never happen. The problem is that the process relies on people not having malevolent intentions. But the senate majority leader, and other spineless Republicans afraid of angering Trump's base, are exactly that set of malevolent actors that aren't willing to put country over themselves.