Government Shutdown Prevention Act: lolwut?

[IBCoupe]

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... _blog.html

Pertinent portion:

“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Where to begin?

Let's start with the Constitution, like Republicans did this Congressional Session:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

House, it's your job to start the ball rolling on legislation that will pay the bills. The Senate, like everybody else, can come up with recommendations, but when it comes to "acting," the ball is in your court.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

So even if the Senate passed and the President signed your "symbolic" bill, it would STILL be an unconstitutional violation of the principle of bicameralism. H.R. 1 was voted down, and in order for it to become law, you still need a Senate vote, and you still need Presidential approval. "Automatic" is illegal, you morons.

That no media outlet has really called them out on this expert display of ineptitude, it adds to my dismay of the relative ignorance of the law held by journalists, and similarly, of the American people.

So, do any of you want to go ahead and explain to me again what you think the value was of reading the Constitution aloud at the start of the term?

[AppleBonker]

So, do any of you want to go ahead and explain to me again what you think the value was of reading the Constitution aloud at the start of the term?

I'm guessing for the same reason that lapel pins have value?

In all seriousness though, I am confused why there is so much debate over $61 billion in cuts. Isn't that less than 4% of the yearly deficit? I'd like to buy a house in the near future, and adjusting my spending by 4% of my income isn't going to get me there in an appreciably shorter time frame.

Edit: don't get me wrong, any reduction in spending is good fiscal policy, but if 4% of the deficit is like pulling teeth, how will the other 96% go?

[themadscientist]

I am all for stopping paychecks to congress. Let's do that right now.

[IBCoupe]

In all seriousness though, I am confused why there is so much debate over $61 billion in cuts. Isn't that less than 4% of the yearly deficit? I'd like to buy a house in the near future, and adjusting my spending by 4% of my income isn't going to get me there in an appreciably shorter time frame.

Edit: don't get me wrong, any reduction in spending is good fiscal policy, but if 4% of the deficit is like pulling teeth, how will the other 96% go?

That's the problem with taking the three biggest items off the table. Though, technically, Social Security doesn't need to really be on the table as much.

[szh]

Social Security doesn't need to really be on the table as much.

Why not?

Z

[IBCoupe]

Because it's not adding to the deficit.

EDIT: That is, rather that it's not adding nearly as much. Social Security, because we robbed the "trust fund", required that we borrow a small amount, but in the face of Medicare and Defense, it's itty bitty. Smaller than the $61bil that Adam just poo-poo'd.

[szh]

The Senate had already voted on and passed a "no-pay" bill earlier: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2chamb ... lawma.html.

I like the fact that it includes a "no retroactive" clause in it.

Although, it has not been passed by the House or signed by the President (as far as I know).

Z

[szh]

Because it's not adding to the deficit.

Yeah, right!

Z

[IBCoupe]

See my edit, above.

[R/T Hemi]

I am all for stopping paychecks to congress. Let's do that right now.

13th Amendment to the Constitution prevents that.

[szh]

I am all for stopping paychecks to congress. Let's do that right now.

13th Amendment to the Constitution prevents that.

Unfortunate!

Z

[bigbadberry3]

[szh]

My company was in financial difficulty (no deficits possible) for much of 2009 and 2010 because of the economy and our financial backers got cold feet about putting more money in.

Our revenues slowed as our Customers became unable to pay us, and new customers took longer to decide to use us. Some of our Customers went belly-up and did not pay their bills to us - for which we had incurred costs.

In Feb of 2009, we laid off more than half our staff and the rest of us took varying degrees of pay cuts to survive - at my level, my annual salary was cut 50%. We also slowed paying our suppliers and vendors and creditors.

For many months (till Aug 2010 ... way more than a year!), salaries were held to those cut levels. And, restoring has been done in slow steps. We are finally paying off our old company debts too.

In March of 2011 (almost two years after the layoffs), my salary is now back to where it was in 2004 or 2005 - I have not had a raise in that entire 6 or 7 year period! And the cut salary in 2009 and 2010 has no retroactive payments planned either!

We did not have a convenient union, or a convenient constitutional requirement(!), making us keep salaries at constant levels (and thereby forcing a bankruptcy) and allowing us to receive any compensation in the face of reduced revenue. We did our hardest effort to make it work out and survive in tough economic conditions. The work load on people was doubled and tripled since we had fewer people to make it all happen.

So, I consider it extremely unfortunate that people in government - Federal and state - believe that they have an entitlement to their salaries and compensation in the face of financial difficulties.

And unfortunate that state-funded workers feel an entitlement to their jobs and worrying about a few percentage point pay cuts.

Learn to tighten your damn belts in tough times. The US Senate and Congress, and state government, and state employees, need to learn the same - I have no sympathy for whiners.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Not going to disagree (because you're right, and that's why most public employee unions are giving concessions), just going to point out that you're off-topic.

[R/T Hemi]

I think Z's point was that he's not in the government/civil service sector, and that the non-government industries are the ones carrying the heaviest burden in this economic crises. I see his point. Congressional representatives don't feel the economic pains any more than a guy with a company gas card feels the rising cost of fuel.

[szh]

Not going to disagree (because you're right, and that's why most public employee unions are giving concessions),

Not as much as they should ... IMHO!

just going to point out that you're off-topic.

Perhaps. But only slightly off-topic, I think!

Until the folks in the Congress and Senate - both sides of the aisle - feel some personal financial pain, they will continue their stupid machinations rather than get down to do real business.

Z

[szh]

I think Z's point was that he's not in the government/civil service sector, and that the non-government industries are the ones carrying the heaviest burden in this economic crises. I see his point. Congressional representatives don't feel the economic pains any more than a guy with a company gas card feels the rising cost of fuel.

Exactly!

Z

[R/T Hemi]

Since we can't force them (our elected gentry) to work for free, we certainly could pay them minimum wage until they actually sat down and paid attention to what we're screaming about.

[IBCoupe]

The real trick being that they have to be willing to knock themselves down to minimum wage.

[telcoman]

Because it's not adding to the deficit.

EDIT: That is, rather that it's not adding nearly as much. Social Security, because we robbed the "trust fund", required that we borrow a small amount, but in the face of Medicare and Defense, it's itty bitty. Smaller than the $61bil that Adam just poo-poo'd.

Not only is Social Security not the problem it could be fixed quite easily by removing the cap on the $106k wage base, Just change it to unlimited!

The bulk of the spending is from the three wars we are in and the Bush Medicare part D drug program that was a give away to the drug lobby

Telcoman

[szh]

And not from the massive deficit spending in the past year or so, right?

Z

[srellim234]

I can't believe I'm defending what he said but telco is correct, z. Telco referenced "the bulk of the spending". The deficit has not quite doubled since FY2008 so the bulk can still be attributed to previous administrations. The argument holds true for now that an awful lot of the spending was inherited from decisions, right or wrong, committed to by the previous administration.

Yes, the current administration's spending habits have made the situation a lot worse, but for now telco is correct.

[R/T Hemi]

.... The argument holds true for now that an awful lot of the spending was inherited from decisions, right or wrong, committed to by the previous administration.

Yes, the current administration's spending habits have made the situation a lot worse, but for now telco is correct.

Part 1 is absolutely on point. We're still paying for the errors in judgment of that administration.
Part 2 should be clarified somewhat. I don't know that what Obama has done has hurt or helped the country. His efforts to turn the economy are necessary, however their effectiveness remains to be seen. We probably won't know until it's far enough in the mirror for hind sight to apply. But Obama did inherited a sinking ship and an iceberg. We can't blame him for everything.

[szh]

Because it's not adding to the deficit.

EDIT: That is, rather that it's not adding nearly as much. Social Security, because we robbed the "trust fund", required that we borrow a small amount, but in the face of Medicare and Defense, it's itty bitty. Smaller than the $61bil that Adam just poo-poo'd.

Not only is Social Security not the problem

Really?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... st/?hpt=T2

Z

[IBCoupe]

Article says that Social Security was 20.4% of the budget (total amount spent) but neglects to mention its portion of the deficit: $37 billion last year (the first year we had to borrow to pay for it, if I'm not mistaken) out of $1.171 trillion is shy of 3.2%. Technically, it's adding to the deficit, but not in an amount that matters.

Social Security is not a budgetary problem - it's a long-term problem in its own right, but there are relatively simple fixes for it. Namely: raise the retirement age over the next forty years to 70 or 71.

[srellim234]

Move the retirement age, remove the $106k ceiling AND not allow the money to be raided for any other purpose. If somehow enough money is put into the system that it begins showing surpluses, reduce the SSI taxes an amount equal to what the interest is that the surpluses earn.

[IBCoupe]

Those would be the rest. And even if you don't institute those easy fixes, guess what! Social Security still isn't a huge budgetary problem for another twenty years.

[szh]

Social Security still isn't a huge budgetary problem for another twenty years.

Sure! Let the future generation worry about what we could have chosen to fix properly today. Like they will be in a better position to do so ...

Z

[IBCoupe]

I wasn't arguing that we shouldn't act, dude. I'm making you wrong. It's nice to see that you cruised on by every other point in order to construct a strawman out of a blatantly false construction of my words.

For f***'s sake, you had to eliminate half of the damned comment in order to make the strawman. It'd be funny if I didn't think you were insulting my intelligence.

Way to go, winner. You don't happen to work in politics, do you? 'Cause you're a f*** pro at misleading talking point, you pedant.

[heliochrome85]

I wasn't arguing that we shouldn't act, dude. I'm making you wrong. It's nice to see that you cruised on by every other point in order to construct a strawman out of a blatantly false construction of my words.

For f***'s sake, you had to eliminate half of the damned comment in order to make the strawman. It'd be funny if I didn't think you were insulting my intelligence.

Way to go, winner. You don't happen to work in politics, do you? 'Cause you're a f**king pro at misleading talking point, you pedant.

temper temper sir.