September 23, 2013
Democrats Hate the American Legislative System
A reminder: the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for potentially shutting down the government. The donkeys doth protest too much. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite: the Democrats are the ones threatening to shut down government.
The key to understanding what's actually going on is to understand the fundamental nature of the American bicameral legislature, in that both houses of the legislature must agree to something in order for it to happen. A Yes and a No are not equivalent: No beats Yes. That is the design. That is how it works. So if you want the IRS to give out free puppy food, and I don't, then I win. We both have to agree to it, or it doesn't happen.
But the Democrats are saying that if the Senate wanted the IRS to fund puppy food, and the House said no, then any Senate failure to act on the rest of the government funding is the House's fault. Saying "you knew we would not act on any bill that doesn't include puppy food funding, so it's your fault we didn't vote to fund government" is pure nonsense.
Again, the side saying No is in the superior position, so there's simply no rational way to look at this and say it is the House's or Republicans' fault if government shuts down.
And you might say that we shouldn't get to this point, that there should be negotiations. Yes, which makes it even more clear that the Democrats are to blame, since Harry Reid and Barack Obama promise that they will continue to refuse to negotiate about it.
The House passed a bill to fund government. There is nothing in the American system that says the Senate has any authority or obligation to demand the House include funding for anything that isn't in that bill. They can ask, but the simple answer at the end of the day is that No beats Yes.
Setting aside the particular issue of "ObamaCare," the House very clearly has the high ground here. The Senate under Harry Reid -- and not the House under John Boehner -- is threatening to allow the government to go unfunded, by refusing to allow the House its constitutional duty to refuse to fund what it wishes to not fund.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 23, 2013
06:56 AM | Email This
What you wrote is as clear as mud. Let me see if I get this right. The House passes a bill A that will clearly not pass the Senate. Yet by your logic, the Senate is at fault because it should just agree to the House bill. Is that what you are saying?
To me, that isn't a case of two sides saying yes. No, what is going to happen is the House passes a bill A. The senate amends bill A and approves the amended version. It is then up to the House to either approve or disapprove the amended version. Therefore, the end decision to "shut down" government will fall on the house and not the Senate.
The alternative version of this is the Senate rejecting the bill in the first place (i.e., Cloture vote). Cruz's stunt could actually backfire in that the Senate could reject the bill, which it then falls back on the House to pass another bill that can be taken up by the Senate. If the House fails to pass a bill that can be heard by the Senate, then the blaim still lies with them. The House can't demand anything of the Senate. It is up to the House to provide the Senate with something to work with.
An aside, it would be funny if Democrats in the Senate sided with Cruz and filibustered the bill also. Why should the Democrats even hear a bill that they know needs serious amendments.
The House bill is unworkable for Senate passing. The public will view this how it really is, which is the House wasn't serious in its deliberation and purposely provided the Senate with an unworkable bill. The only question will be is whether the Senate sends the bill back without hearing, or the Senate amends the bill and sends it back.
It's the Senate's duty to take up the House Appropriations bills and modify/vote on them. Then send them back to committee (if not approved outright) for negotiations.
Spending STARTS in the House; the Senate can amend and approve/reject as needed - but they need to do that. Simply saying "no" doesn't work. The Senate is the one falling down on the job, not the House.
One further comment.
"...since Harry Reid and Barack Obama promise that they will continue to refuse to negotiat eabout it."
Where you referring to the budget bill or the raising debt ceiling regarding this comment?
If you were referring to the budget bill, please provide the source where Obama stated he wouldn't negotiate the budget.
You are right that Obama has said he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling, but that isn't the bill in question. On the debt ceiling, why should Obama negotiate? Congress has already charged the credit card, and now is wanting to say it wants to renegotiate payments on the card. Obama is saying, no, you need to pay the bills you already incurred.
Also, Obama won't negotiate on an already passed bill (i.e., ACA/Obamacare). In fact, the stunt by the House and Cruz won't even effect most of the funding anyway, since it has been already funded through permanent funding authorization. They would need to change the law, not just try to not fund.
So, let's say Cruz is successful, what happens then? The House forwarded a bill that the Senate refused to debate. Since this type of bill has to originate in the House, is it up to the House to amend the bill so it can be heard by the Senate?
Let's take a hypothetical, leaving aside the ACA issue, where the House passes a bill that contains an obvious flaw (they missed an entire section of funding that they were required to address). The Senate in good faith can't act on the bill if it is flawed. It wouldn't even reach debate. Is there not within the process an outright "send it back to the House to fix" in the process. Or, in the hypothetical, is the Senate required to debate and vote on the bill, adding in amendments to fix the flaw. Would the amendment be unconstitutional since it was initiating funding, which is the House's task? Surely, the rules allow for the case where a bill is flawed.
My best guess is Cruz's stunt will fail and the Senate will debate the bill, amend it and send it back to conference. Any conference bill, however, still requires two yes votes (House and Senate). So, if the House is adamant and won't approve the conference bill, then it falls back on them. Pudge was trying to state that the Senate would be at fault for not approving the original House bill (at least that is the "mud" of his logic). Maybe he can clean up the "mud" logic and handle the case of the conference bill (i.e., amended Senate bill). The Senate is under no obligation to vote the House bill w/o "fixing" it.
I do believe that the bill is fundamentally flawed as I previously noted in the fact that it doesn't "defund" Obamacare. The only way to do that is to change the permanent appropriations in place that are part of the established law. This appropriations bill, from all reports, doesn't touch these.
Just because the House wants to play games, doesn't mean the Senate has to also play the game. My prediction is the Senate will debate, amend the House bill and send it to conference committee. They won't vote "No" as Pudge suggests, but it will be "Yes, but with these changes." It will be up to the House as to whether to accept or reject the changes. If it rejects, then the decision will be on them. Pudge's scenario is, like I stated, "mud." It doesn't handle all the process.
You wrote " There is nothing in the American system that says the Senate has any authority or obligation to demand the House include funding for anything that isn't in that bill."
By news reports, the opposite is the case with the current House bill. It reportedly states that the bill "strips" funding (i.e., it removes in place funding. The Senate is under no obligation to approve this removal of previously approved funding, using your logic. Therefore, again, the most logical course of action is Senate amends the House bill to remove the languate "stripping" already approved funding. The Senate is not adding "new" funding, only removing a section of the bill. It is up to the House to try to get their amendment back in during conference resolution between the House and Senate.
6. "language" instead of "languate" on my last post.
anonymous coward: The House passes a bill A that will clearly not pass the Senate. Yet by your logic, the Senate is at fault because it should just agree to the House bill. Is that what you are saying?
Absolutely not. They have no obligation to agree to it. They can choose to shut down the government.
Therefore, the end decision to "shut down" government will fall on the house and not the Senate.
Yes, it does. The Senate is choosing to shut down the government if the House doesn't agree to do something the House doesn't want to agree to. Literally and explicitly, that is what they are doing. The House is simply choosing to not include something it doesn't want.
Cruz's stunt could actually backfire in that the Senate could reject the bill, which it then falls back on the House to pass another bill that can be taken up by the Senate.
Yes, the Senate can try to force the House to agree to something it doesn't want. The Senate is perfectly free to reject the checks and balances of the Constitution.
If the House fails to pass a bill that can be heard by the Senate, then the blaim still lies with them.
Fine, but since every bill the House passes can be taken up by the Senate, you're not making a relevant point.
The House can't demand anything of the Senate.
It isn't! You have it completely backward. Literally and explicitly, the Senate is the one making the demands. The House is making no demands, it is simply saying "no" to the Senate's demand.
It is up to the House to provide the Senate with something to work with.
Yes, and the House is doing exactly that. That the Senate chooses to not work with it is not the House's fault, it's -- obviously -- the Senate's.
You are arguing that the Senate can do anything it wants and the House has to play along, and if it doesn't, it's the House's fault. That is, frankly, idiotic, especially after you just got done saying the House cannot make demands of the Senate, while defending the notion that the Senate can make demands of the House.
An aside, it would be funny if Democrats in the Senate sided with Cruz and filibustered the bill also. Why should the Democrats even hear a bill that they know needs serious amendments.
Um. So they can amend it. That's how the process works.
The House bill is unworkable for Senate passing. The public will view this how it really is, which is the House wasn't serious in its deliberation and purposely provided the Senate with an unworkable bill.
You're lying. Please stop lying. Thanks in advance. And you even admitted this is a lie when you predicted the Senate will amend the bill and approve the amended version. That is the definition of "workable."
Yes, technically, this is a "permanent appropriation." But that's essentially a myth. All appropriations, even "permanent" ones, need to go through the current Congress each year. And look, whining about the process when the Democrats used every underhanded and despicable technique they had to pass the bill in the first place ... please, who do you think you're kidding?
Where you referring to the budget bill or the raising debt ceiling regarding this comment?
Neither. The continuing resolution, which is not a budget.
If you were referring to the budget bill, please provide the source where Obama stated he wouldn't negotiate the budget.
We will not negotiate over whether or not America should keep its word and meet its obligations. We're not going to allow anyone to inflict economic pain on millions of our own people just to make an ideological point. And those folks are going to get some health care in this country--we've been waiting 50 years for it.
Now, you might think this is about the debt ceiling, but it was in the context of the newly passed House bill. The MSNBC author agrees it is about the continuing resolution (although the author is lying that the GOP ever threatened a government shutdown).
Regardless, Reid said he would not negotiate it, and Obama promised to veto it no matter what, which is the same as saying he won't negotiate. The funny thing is that Obama has no power here. It likely won't pass unless Reid agrees to it, and if Reid agrees to it, Obama has no real muscle to veto it. But whatever.
On the debt ceiling, why should Obama negotiate?
Because he has no power to get what he wants without negotiating.
Congress has already charged the credit card, and now is wanting to say it wants to renegotiate payments on the card.
Yeah, that's the Democratic line, and it's bullshit. Obama has known -- just like he did the last time this happened -- for months that he did not have the money to cover those payments, but he spent the money anyway. It's like if I am your dad and I told you to fix your car, pay for your gas, and buy a new suit, and the total you can spend on them is $3000. But unfortunately -- sorry! -- we can only cover $2000. Then you go out and spend $3000, and say I am obligated to give you more.
No, Obama knew this was coming, and was absolutely obligated to shrink spending to match his available funds. (And don't give me this crap about how Obama was obligated to spend all that money, because it, too, is bullshit. Yes, there's a law about it, but it doesn't actually say the President is required to spend the money, it's probably unconstitutional, and it would require the Congress to take action to force the President, which would never happen in these circumstances anyway.)
Obama is saying, no, you need to pay the bills you already incurred.
The bills HE incurred, knowing full well he couldn't pay them back.
Well yeah. The entire premise of the Left is to prey on ignorance. If citizens actually understood Civics 101 or why for example, minimum wage hurts poor people more than it helps. Or why solar panels do not have the energy density of natural gas... then they would never vote Democrat ever again.
The Democrat message is simple. Promise free stuff to idiots and/or scare idiots with hyperbole, and use that to retain power.
Actually you could reduce it further: Democrats hate humans.
I always find it ironic that Left leaning voters are often animal lovers and animal rights supporters. They loath the idea of caging an animal in a zoo and removing an animal's freedom to roam the earth in its own instinctual way. And they often post signs reading "Don't feed the animals" fearing that they might become dependent. It crushes them to see a wild animal put down after acting in the manner of a wild animal.
Yet these same people love the idea of putting humans in special housing developments and separating them in to groups by skin color, and they want to give them food stamps and feed them absent any effort frequently, training them to become dependent. And to these people, it is a repugnant thought to give humans more freedom and to allow them to live out their instinctive drive to prosper and use the earth and her resources for individual benefit.
A completely upside down world view.
10. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite: the Democrats are the ones threatening to shut down government.
You just keep telling yourself that. You'll have no trouble convincing Leftover and KDS, but who cares about them? Most of the rest of the voting public isn't going to buy it. If there's any disruption in govt services or financial markets -- they are going to blame Republicans. Too bad for you.
In the end, ObamaCare is going to roll out, govt will be funded, and the debt ceiling is going to be raised. The only question is how much damage will the teabaggers do to the nation and Republican party before we get there.
anonymous coward: You just keep telling yourself that.
Most of the rest of the voting public isn't going to buy it. If there's any disruption in govt services or financial markets -- they are going to blame Republicans. Too bad for you.
You are just saying that the voting public is mostly ignorant. And?
In the end, ObamaCare is going to roll out, govt will be funded, and the debt ceiling is going to be raised.
Maybe, but I hope not.
The only question is how much damage will the teabaggers do to the nation
If they are successful, none, because -- as Obama said -- raising the debt limit is bad, and keeping it un-raised is good; further, as Obama said, a mandate is a bad idea. So where's the damage, according to Obama, in preventing things Obama said are bad?
Any damage done by shutdown, as I have demonstrated, is the fault of the Democrats.
"All appropriations, even "permanent" ones, need to go through the current Congress each year."
See below link for one example of government funding that doesn't need to go through Congress each year, the DoD Working Capital fund. (See Section 010104 for specifics on how it is funded)
So, what you stated is not correct.
13. There is no technical definition of "fault" when Congress doesn't (or does) pass a bill, much as pudge would like to think otherwise. Fault is a matter of opinion depending on the issues and your perspective. Every American will reach his/her own conclusion about who is being reasonable and unreasonable. I am confident that if the government is largely shut down because the Democrats will not agree to essentially repeal Obamacare, and the Democrats refuse to essentially repeal Obamacare to keep the government running, then most Americans will (and already do) believe that the Republicans are being far more unreasonable and essentially holding the country hostage. But this is my opinion, and I lack pudge's sensitive finger on the pulse of the American public.
The House has done its Constitutionally required job. If the Senate doesn't like it, then can amend, vote, and send back. That's how it's supposed to work.
How can the House know what the Senate wants, unless the Senate will sit down and actually discuss and vote on a bill, or amendments thereof?
The House did their job; it's now the Senate that is blocking it all.
pudge@11: It's not my job to refute your brain farts. The evidence is going to be empirical and it's going to show you are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you agree or even realize it.
If it makes you feel better to say you're smarter or better informed than those who disagree with you, have at it. Your self-satisfaction isn't important. But the GOP is going to get slammed if they keep up with this foolishness and that makes me happy. Plus, they won't get what they want and neither will you.
When it's all over, you can come back here and commiserate with KDS and the other wingnuts and talk about how it shoulda been -- sorta like the 2012 election. I'll be reading and laughing.
16. Wouldn't this whole discussion be moot if the Senate had passed a budget? We are something like 3? 4? years without one??
anonymous coward: See below link for one example of government funding that doesn't need to go through Congress each year
Sorry, you missed my point (which wasn't clearly made). It's not that it has to be explicitly voted for each year -- indeed, the Constitution explicitly says that military appropriations can be for up to two years -- but that all monies go through Congress. They are not automatic. And funds are designated for a particular fiscal year.
dkk42: There is no technical definition of "fault" when Congress doesn't (or does) pass a bill, much as pudge would like to think otherwise.
I implied no such thing at all. What I described was an argument based in reason, where that reason was based on technical facts; but nowhere did I imply that the the technical facts themselves said anything about fault.
Fault is a matter of opinion depending on the issues and your perspective.
True, but if you blame the Republicans for shutting down government when they pass a bill to keep government open, and the Senate refuses (as promised) to do its job to take up that bill for consideration and therefore is explicitly choosing to shut down the government, then it's pretty clear that if you think the Republicans are at primary fault for the government shutting down, your opinion is pretty damned stupid, and not in the least bit based in reality.
I am confident that if the government is largely shut down because the Democrats will not agree to essentially repeal Obamacare, and the Democrats refuse to essentially repeal Obamacare to keep the government running, then most Americans will (and already do) believe that the Republicans are being far more unreasonable and essentially holding the country hostage.
But that isn't what's happening, so you're just saying Americans are stupid. If the Democrats do their job and pass an appropriations bill, they will go to conference, and almost certainly, there will be a compromise that will not essentially amount to repeal. The only reason it seems to most Americans like it is all-or-nothing with "ObamaCare" is because the Democrats are choosing to not negotiate, and the people idiotically believe that is the Republicans' fault.
anonymous coward: It's not my job to refute
Then you tacitly admit that no one should believe you when you say I am wrong. Shrug.
The evidence is going to be empirical and it's going to show you are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you agree or even realize it.
Provide the evidence, then.
the GOP is going to get slammed if they keep up
Again, you're just saying the voters are ignorant. Shrug.
20. fieryfood: no, it'd still be the same basic concept regardless.
21. You missed the point and are still wrong. You don't understand Capital Funding. Capital projects can be multiple years The funds are appropriated once, and spent over several fiscal years. Examples include: Base Closure, new building, and a Carrier overhaul.
22. It is my experience that whatever leftist say, the exact opposite is happening AND whenever they blame the GOP for anything, it is they who are doing it.
anonymous coward: wrong on all counts. This isn't about capital funding. The money actually isn't appropriated once, from a capital budget, but mostly through annual appropriations from whatever the current fiscal year is.
For example, the law says in many places things like, "For purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014." But that Congress cannot dictate to this Congress what monies are actually appropriated for this year. It's a fiction. Yes, it's in the law, but this Congress is literally not bound by it. That's the whole point behind the House not being a continuing body: prior Congresses cannot make the rules for the following Congresses.
In principle, the GOP has the high ground. However, the culture has deteriorated to the point that only a minority cares about principles and the wussified weasel media will spread leftwing propaganda to enable double digit IQ lefties to admire old pukes like Harry Reid and demonize smart and bold up and comers like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and others brave enough to confront the lockstep leftwing extremists in control.
Lee and Cruz have noble aspirations, but they are misplaced and I am not sure if they will lower these expectations to delaying the Individual Mandate for one year, which has a chance of prevailing in the Senate. If Cruz and Lee refuse to yield, they may create an impasse, while putting the GOP in jeopardy of being blamed by the weasel wussified media if the Government is shut down. That coupled with the racist serial liar of a president claptrap will convince enough double-digit IQ leftists (i.e. low information voters) and others on the edge that it is the GOP's fault, but Mr. Obamao is really the one who actually shuts down the Government - you idjits. But alas, the Government will not shut down and its anyone's guess what will legislatively transpire. A delay of the Individual Mandate would be a dare I say (a reasonable compromise). However, compromise is blasphemy to both left and right wings (that control both parties).
Centrists and RINOs are being squeezed out because of the extremist polarizing leftwing ideologue administration that exists.
KDS: my current thinking is that the Democrats will pass a bill with full funding of "ObamaCare," they will go to conference, and the Democrats will "accept" a two-year mandate delay (to take them through the next election in 2014, in which they can promise if they are elected, they will fix the problems in 2015, before the 2016 implementation!), along with other delays/removals that they themselves want for various reasons, but they will pretend are concessions.
And Cruz might jump at the chance, if there's enough removals and delays, because it'll give him and the GOP time to try to bring in enough Senators to make a difference for that 2015 fight.
I see nothing misplaced here. The GOP has nothing significant to lose with the tactic. The only people who are truly bothered by what they are doing are people who won't vote for them anyway, who swallow the lies of the media regardless, or who are supposedly on their side but regularly attack "the Tea Party" and will continue to vote Republican anyway.
Now, if there actually is a shutdown -- which is extremely unlikely -- it depends entirely on how it happens. If the Senate doesn't even attempt to compromise, the Republicans have the upper hand. And if they do attempt to compromise, then the Republicans have an opening to actually get rid of parts of ObamaCare. Seems like a lot of room for winning here.
26. Provide the evidence, then.
No. You've provided your opinion and I've provided mine. I'm happy to wait a few weeks and see how events transpire. My guess is you'll soon be back here whining about the unfairness of it all and consoling yourself that all those other voters (esp. the female ones) are simply ignorant. If I thought you had any influence, I'd encourage you to keep pushing that line because it's sure to be a real winner for the GOP.
anonymous coward: No. You've provided your opinion and I've provided mine.
You provided your opinion that I was wrong, but that opinion is literally useless, since you gave no argument against me,
I'm happy to wait a few weeks and see how events transpire.
You don't seem to even understand what we're talking about. How the events transpire could not possibly have an impact on what I wrote, since I was writing about who is actually to blame under certain conditions. You then went off on this idiotic tangent about who the public will blame, as if that has anything to do with the discussion of who is actually to blame.
My guess is you'll soon be back here whining about the unfairness of it all
So you're saying you're stupid. Shrug. I never whine about unfairness in politics. I say things are wrong, are lies, and so on ... but I don't complain about fairness. That's the left's department.
and consoling yourself that all those other voters (esp. the female ones) are simply ignorant.
You're a liar. I never said females are ignorant. Never even came close to saying that. And using an IP anonymizer doesn't really protect you when you're repeating the same lies as before, you sexist pig.
That said, yes, most people are terribly ignorant about politics and so on. This is hardly news. It's one of the major tenets of journalism and of politics, no matter what party or news org you're with. Sure, the public doesn't like to be told that they are ignorant, but I am not in the business of giving a damn what people think. I just say what I think.
The only way you can make a reasonable case against my point is not to say the people disagree with me, but to show that I am actually wrong, that the Senate isn't at fault, doesn't deserve the blame, for a shutdown under the conditions discussed, because if I am right that the Democrats are to blame, and the people think Republicans are to blame, then I am also right that the people are ignorant. You can't win here by pretending to care what the masses think (and you clearly don't, because you're a socialist, so by definition you don't care what the people think, as long as you get what you want).
If I thought you had any influence, I'd encourage you to keep pushing that line because it's sure to be a real winner for the GOP.
If I had a lot of influence, if a lot of people listened to me, the voters would be a lot less ignorant, which is bad news for the Democrats. Be careful what you wish for.
28. And using an IP anonymizer doesn't really protect you...
Protect me from what, pudge -- your hissy fit? Do your worst.
If I had a lot of influence, if a lot of people listened to me, the voters would be a lot less ignorant, ...
Sure they would. Listen to yourself -- an internet blowhard with an ego the size of a planet. Just what the world is waiting for to lead them from darkness.
...which is bad news for the Democrats.
I'm sure they're quaking in terror at the possibility. You've done wonders for the candidates you've supported so far.
29. demo kid, you are pretty obvious.
anonymous coward: Protect me from what
From having your posts properly removed due to you being properly banned, obviously.
an internet blowhard with an ego the size of a planet
The bizarre thing is that every single person who has ever said something like this to me has an ego no smaller than mine, and is a blowhard no less than me.
Why do you think that is? Project much, maybe?
You've done wonders for the candidates you've supported so far.
So why are you pretending this is a bad thing? Or do you incorrectly think that most of the candidates I've supported have lost, when in fact, most of them have won? Yes, it's true that the higher profile candidates have mostly lost, but ... so what? How does that argue against any of my points?
It's not about me, it's about facts. The fact that, for example, Christine Gregoire won in her reelection is explicitly because people believed lies. This is well-understood. She said she wouldn't try to raise taxes, she said there was no spending problem and no deficit, she spread many proven lies about Rossi, and so on. A guy I worked with -- who follows politics more than the average person -- said his main reason for voting against Rossi is because "we don't need another investment banker in government." It's enough to make your head spin, the ignorance and idiocy out there. Even the Seattle Times spent much of its coverage on the race simply exposing Gregoire's lies, and they have a lot more influence than me, and it still didn't make a difference.
The fact that I tried to educate voters and failed doesn't imply anything bad about me, it just means either I don't have enough readers to turn an election, that are also open to the facts. And few people do have that kind of influence. But if I did, Gregoire would have lost. Shrug.
But the sad fact is that people generally aren't open to facts. They ignore facts they don't like. Psychiatrists well-understand the phenomenon, which normally isn't a terrible thing, but politicians have found out how to exploit it, and that makes it have terrible results, because the people who have the fewest principles are the ones who exploit it the most. Hence, Democratic rule.
pudge: You can delete my comments if you want. It won't be anything new. You just won't be able to continue the lie about not reading them before you delete them.
We'll know that you're just deleting comments you don't like because you don't trust your readers to make up their own minds. And we'll also know that your comment threads aren't an honest debate.
It makes you look weak and foolish -- but that's also not new.
You may think it isn't about Capital Budgeting, but you are wrong again. My link has everything to do with how the government funds capital expenditures. In the link, it was for DoD capital items. It directly rebuts your statement that all items are appropriated annually. If you check the newspaper archives, this topic comes up each time around. You would see that the majority of the work at Naval Shipyards, for instance, is not affected by the continuous resolution bills. Why? It is because they are funded by the Navy Working Capital Fund, managed by NAVSEA. You can try to change the subject or change what you originally meant by your statement, but you are petty this way with others when you hold them to there exact words used. Therefore, you are under the same ground rules. Your statement that all items are annual is false.
33. The question is how long it will take for enough GOP congress-weasels to turn belly-up on this issue and cave yet again.
Take a junior high school civics class.
Even the Republican Senate leader does not buy yours & Cruz's BS.
anonymous coward: Please, enlighten me as to where I and Cruz and Lee are wrong.
Senator Lee is a constitutional lawyer and former clerk to Justice Alito (when Alito was a federal judge), and last night Lee was basically echoing exactly what I said here.
Lee discussed how, for example, a Congress cannot "bind" a future Congress to particular spending.
It was almost exactly what I wrote more than 24 hours before that: "... But that Congress cannot dictate to this Congress what monies are actually appropriated for this year. It's a fiction. Yes, it's in the law, but this Congress is literally not bound by it. That's the whole point behind the House not being a continuing body: prior Congresses cannot make the rules for the following Congresses."
Funny how similar those sound. I think Lee is reading this web site.
So if you have a counterargument to me and Senator Lee, provide it. But simply saying Mitch McConnell disagrees with me, without even providing a quote of him disagreeing with me ... it carries absoutely no weight. You have to provide an actual argument.
But most of you leftists don't like arguments, because arguments are hard, especially against someone who is strong on the facts.
anonymous coward: On what basis do you say I am "lying" when I say that I don't read the comments? It's absolutely true, when I say it.
anonymous coward: Um. The ACA is not about capital budgeting. That was what I meant, I think, very clearly. And -- as I said, as Senator Lee said last night/this morning -- no Congress can be bound to spending by past Congresses. ALL spending for a fiscal year goes through the Congress for that fiscal year, and the ACA spending is explicitly tied to each fiscal year, so it is clearly a myth that the House has any obligation to allow ACA money to be spent just because it's in the law.
I am not trying to change the subject, I am talking about the ACA, which IS the subject, in case you forgot.
Your posts at 35 and 36 are confusing to who you are referring to when you use "Anonymous Coward" since there are multiple anonymous people posting.
On my thread offshoot, I am referring to your comment in @7. Let me requote, so it is in context.
"Yes, technically, this is a "permanent appropriation." But that's essentially a myth. All appropriations, even "permanent" ones, need to go through the current Congress each year. And look, whining about the process when the Democrats used every underhanded and despicable technique they had to pass the bill in the first place ... please, who do you think you're kidding?"
Your term in the second sentence is "All Appropriations" and you end with "need to go through Congress each year". It is false for Capital expenditures (link I provided). Even by your response in @35, this statement is false, since a term of Congress is not just for one year. What Lee is most likely referring to is technically operating fund appropriations, which expire after one fiscal year. He most surely is aware of capital appropriations and I would assume not encompassing them in his statement. The appropriation for a capital project is approved at the start of the project, which may have phases, where each phase is approved, but once the appropriation has been made, the funds have been set aside to be spent over the lifetime of the project, which lasts more than one fiscal year. The funds are not provided all at once, but in the Treasury, they are designated and can't be used for other expenditures. So, the cash flow (what is actually spent in the fiscal year) would show expenditures over multiple fiscal years on the government books. The funds don't need reappropriation each year to be spent.
This is different (accounting-wise) than general operating expenses. For general operating expenses, the accounting line item expires at the end of the fiscal year and new monies have to be set aside, with new line item for the subsequent year. This, as Lee alludes to, is up to the current Congress for the given upcoming fiscal year to decide to allocate those funds. The continuing resolution does not need to address the already allocated capital funds, since they don't expire, except upon project completion or cancellation. A subsequent Congress could decide to cancel a capital project once it has started and thus "save" the remaining funds not already due (i.e., current liabilities -- accounts payable). This wouldn't be in the continuing resolution type bill, however. The continuing resolution bill addresses budget items that expire September 30th.
anonymous coward: "Your posts at 35 and 36 are confusing to who you are referring to when you use "Anonymous Coward" since there are multiple anonymous people posting."
And again, this is about the ACA, not capital expenditures. I am not going to quibble about the precise meaning of what I said in regard to "all spending" etc., because it does not inform this discussion.
The ACA cannot bind a future Congress to spending in a particular fiscal year. In rejecting that spending, the current Congress is not "changing the law," it is simply refusing to be bound by a previous Congress. And indeed, it seems as though you agree with me regarding the ACA, when you say, "the accounting line item expires at the end of the fiscal year and new monies have to be set aside, with new line item for the subsequent year. This, as Lee alludes to, is up to the current Congress for the given upcoming fiscal year to decide to allocate those funds."
And all I am saying is the House has absolute authority to choose to not allocate those funds, and it is up to the Senate and President to convince the House if it wants those funds, and if they cannot do so, then any retaliatory action -- refusing to fund *the rest* of government -- is fully and completely on them, not the House.
1. My pettiness on the "All appropriations" and "each year" is because you will often (regularly) use this tactic with people who disagree with you. You basically admitted in your response @38 that you didn't mean "ALL" and were only really referring to appropriations associated with ACA. You finally qualified your statement to make it true, something which you don't offer the benefit to those who challenge you. Maybe you are beginning to see the pettiness that you argue points sometimes.
2. As far as ACA funding, let's break down further and cover the Medicare portions of the ACA. While technically, Medicare can't pay out until it has funds in the given fiscal year, the good faith of the government (this includes Congress) is on the hook for expenses incurred under the program that haven't been paid out, including expenses that occurred in Medicare due to changes that have already occurred under ACA. To not pay these liabilities incurred is default. Normally, businesses can set aside funds for paying these, but with the Federal government, this doesn't exactly work (except for Capital funds that don't expire Sept 30th). For Federal items with expiring funds, all liabilities have to be paid by or on Sept 30th. To cut the check on October 1st would be against the law (they may be a day or two grace, but in general, this is the case). Therefore, without funds in October to pay Medicare approved procedures that occurred in September, Congress is saying it won't pay its liabilities. As far as I know, a hospital doesn't have to submit the bills for all its September cases by Sept 30th to be paid. However, as you stated the funds for these Medicare billings have to be approved for the new fiscal year. It is in this respect that one can't defund ACA law changes already in affect (example being Medicare changes). The actions based on the law changes have already occurred and the government has incurred the liability to pay out on the approved by law medical procedure (for example). There are many instances in the ACA like this. Yes, things like the Health Exchanges haven't started yet and penalties like the not having insurance tax penalty is still off to Calendar Year 2014, but there are many other parts of the law already in place where liabilities have already been incurred that the government is on the hook for.
Some of the GOP have wised up to this fact and now are not using the term "defund", but instead delay implementation or change/cancel portions of the law yet to be implemented. This should have been their approach all along. The charade of "defund" of ACA is all theater and not reality.
anonymous coward: My pettiness ... is because ...
I don't care.
... you will often (regularly) use this tactic with people who disagree with you.
False. I do focus on words used, but I try to keep it relevant to the point, and you're not doing that.
You basically admitted in your response @38 that you didn't mean "ALL" and were only really referring to appropriations associated with ACA. You finally qualified your statement to make it true ...
I absolutely did not do that. I said, rather, that I am not going to argue your point, because it is irrelevant to the discussion. I did not qualify or amend or even refer to my previous comment that you're on about.
While technically, Medicare can't pay out until it has funds in the given fiscal year, the good faith of the government (this includes Congress) is on the hook for expenses incurred under the program that haven't been paid out, including expenses that occurred in Medicare due to changes that have already occurred under ACA. To not pay these liabilities incurred is default.
Sure, but paying existing liabilities is not what we're talking about in "defunding the ACA." Those liabilities will be paid. You're wrong about that; it's not how the bill is written.
Some of the GOP have wised up to this fact and now are not using the term "defund", but instead delay implementation or change/cancel portions of the law yet to be implemented.
No, that is not what is happening. Otherwise, they would say "we'll pay existing liabilities but not fund future ones," which is actually how it works under the House bill anyway. The effort to "delay implementation" is from the people who think it is not possible or wise to defund, because it is a political winner that even many Democrats would agree to.
The charade of "defund" of ACA is all theater and not reality.
You've given no reason why it's a charade.
So, what you are saying is the House bill states that changes to Medicare done by ACA are null and void and any new charges (after October 1st) should be disallowed. Where does the continuing resolution change the medicare law back to pre-ACA?
anonymous coward: So, what you are saying is the House bill states that changes to Medicare done by ACA are null and void and any new charges (after October 1st) should be disallowed.
False. I am not saying that. I am talking about funding of changes, which is distinct from nullifying the changes. No law needs to be changed.
Again, a prior Congress cannot bind a future Congress to spending from the General Fund during a given fiscal year.