Associated Press
Two months ago, lawmakers had already circled March 27 on the calendars -- the date markedon which funding for the government would run out. A top Republican aide on Capitol Hill said at the time that a government shutdown fight might be necessary for GOP lawmakers to get the need for an apocalyptic confrontation with Obama "out of their system."
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said at the time, "I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we're serious." That she sounded more like a hostage taker than a legislator was not lost on Capitol Hill observers.
Two months later, however, cooler heads prevailed, and funding is now in place through the end of the fiscal year.
The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a Senate-passed bill to avert a government shutdown next week that also provides the military and some domestic agencies more flexibility in dealing with $85 billion in automatic spending cuts.
The stop-gap measure, which funds government agencies and discretionary programs through the September 30 end of the current fiscal year, won approval in a 318-109 vote, and now moves to President Barack Obama's Desk to be signed into law.
In all, 203 Republicans voted to pass the Senate version, and they were joined by 115 Democrats.
The sequestration policy remains in effect, though today's continuing resolution "provides flexibility to the Pentagon and a handful of domestic programs in an effort to avoid some of the worst impacts of the automatic, indiscriminate spending cuts."
This is, to be sure, a positive development -- Congressional Storm Francis never had any significant effect on anyone -- and I'm glad there won't be a government shutdown next week. But I'd recommend keeping the champagne on ice.
For one thing, there's a debt-ceiling crisis on the horizon, which is not only likely to be ugly, but also poses a far more significant risk.
For another, I continue to think it's a shame that the political world considers it some kind of success story when government shutdowns are avoided.
Our expectations have been lowered to pathetic depths. In April 2011, Republicans threatened a government shutdown, which was narrowly averted. In September 2011, they threatened another. In April 2012, they threatened another. In early 2013, they threatened yet another.
In each instance, we're all relieved when the crisis passes, and I certainly understand why, but let's remember a nagging detail: there's no reason for us to be impressed when the legislative branch of the United States government manages, just barely, to keep its own lights on.
In other words, we've internalized absurd standards. We simply assume as a matter of course that important policymaking is nearly impossible, and we then celebrate basic legislative competence that, in the not-too-distant past, would have been considered routine and unremarkable.
Yes, I'm glad there won't be a government down. Yes, it's remarkable Congress got this done with six whole days to spare. But by any meaningful standard, this isn't an impressive legislative accomplishment; it's the bare minimum Americans should expect.
Leave a Comment:
The most dangerous threat to democracy and the well being of the American people is the United States Congress. Not going to get any better in the foreseeable future.
"Congress is America's only native criminal class." -- Mark Twain, 1872
Let's ask a shoe on the other foot question. If it were a Dem controlled House with a GOP Senate majority and a GOP President wanting to step up the murder of leftists opponents of authoritarian regimes in South America, then consider the alternatives. If the House continually blocked any funding of the Drone Program in South America, and continually proposed symbolic protest votes to forbid the use of Drones there, would they not resemble the GOP's actions? Most progressives agree there are issues like this where no compromise is possible. The GOP opponents of the Affordable Care Act claim this is such an issue. Of course, it is not especially credible that every proposal from Obama would be of this class.
The dysfunction is a product of the gulf in public opinion, no longer living in a homogenous world view informed by a pipe puffing trusted news reader. Was the delivered information product really better back then? The 15 minutes of news that ignored the reality of poverty and disenfranchisement in the Jim Crow south? Yet the elites realized when they lost Cronkite during the Vietnam war that the omniscient voice was a grave threat to their hegemony. As Putin, Berlusconi and Ailes knows, there must be media outlets to confirm the world view they are projecting.
Social media allows me to form robust networks of like minded individuals, and making it unnecessary to build bridges of harmony with neighbors who are forming their own networks living in the Drudge, Breitbart, and RushBo informed world views.
If no compromise- no harmony is possible with the worldviews represented in the House- then it is not Iraq that has become Americanized, but American politics becoming Iraqinized. As Dems, our only alternative is to crush the GOP using a spiraling arms race of money and sophisticated voter persuasion techniques. I have been an advocate of such a strategy- that in 2012, the DNC and Obama failed to focus attention on a winnable campaign to take back the House.
So once we have Dem majorities and are ramrodding through progressive legislation, will the GOP adjust and modernize their world view so that they will win elections? Or will the confirming media outlets disallow such adjustment, with RushBo's giving away to survivalist Pundits jacking the rhetoric to levels even he would consider lunatic. Iraquified Pundits cynical about the possibility of political solutions- those who speak more and more of 2nd amendment options.
That's the dangerous threat to democracy. Either representatives "sell out" their constituencies (liberal and conservative), and compromise on "non-negotiable" issues, or citizens at the grass roots become less radicalized. Of course, I don't think my views are radical. But neither do those of the far right. I pay attention to the facts about an unarmed civilian protesting illegal settlements being killed by the Israeli military. It doesn't matter that the fact is reported by Al Jazeera or Putin's RT news network, and not reported by American news outlets including MSNBC.
My view is that the facts need to win. I advocate unrestricted political warfare on the GOP, that we seek elimination of their votes in congress, rather than compromise or accommodationwithf their non fact based positions. Let their representatives sell them out. We will demand our representatives make no accommodation on non negotiable issues, or we shall promptly vote them out of office.
Let the survivalists go off the deep end. There is as much compromise possible as Dr. King was willing to compromise with the Birmingham preachers urging him to take a moderate, "get along" posture that black preachers had traditionally taken with the ruling Southern authoritarian order.
There shall be no accommodation of such insanity.
Couldn't agree more. Well stated. I'm afraid it may take a government shutdown to get voters to start concentrating on the facts.
Sorry but it is the "Republican" Congress...the senate is controlled by Republicans also thanks to the filibuster rule which allows 41 republican senators to overrule 59 democratic senators. So lets lay the blame where it belongs because this "both sides are to blame" meme is just untrue...it is the republicans who are following a tea party agenda of the 1% who are selling us all down the river.
I was not making an equal blame argument. I was pointing out that obstruction is not an illegitimate strategy. But some in the Dem party- in particular 1st term Obama believed that ultra partisan zero sum political warfare was not a legitimate strategy. This includes radically reforming Senate rules so that constitutional balance of power is restored. If the GOP wants a veto, they will have to win the white house, and 41 Senate votes will no longer be sufficient to block the will of the people.
My argument was that it is not only legitimate, but the only pragmatic and realistic strategy for achieving progressive goals.
The only reason this deal got made is the voting public stepped up in November. The inverse is true as well, if we don't show up in 2014, we get shutdowns and hostage dramas...
Dude, we are getting hostage drama. Check the Republican statements on how they aren't fighting the continuing resolution because they're arming up for a replay of their highly successful campaign with the debt ceiling in 2011.
D.C. : Why do you think Boehner has ignored the Hasert Rule on the big issues?. The reason is us, the people. I say no way they do the debt ceiling threat again, the people saw it for what it was and is. Remember, in 2011 the Republican Party was one, completely together. Now they would have a hard time getting a softball team together.
Congress is apathetic, the tactic now, let the sequester kick in and see if the economy holds, they will declare victory and try for even more. What I (readers?) would like to see is daily reporting on where the sequester is making lives more difficult, rather than the wide brush approach.
Thanks Steve!
Robman: you are right that we need to see stories about how the sequester is hurting real people. Only by showing how much government spending contributes to our economy and quality of life will we discredit the austerity anti-government ideology that has been foisted off onto too many people by the republicans since Reagan. Only when the rank and file voters see that it is a false ideology will we get rid of the obstructionists and get some sensible people in Congress.
And even the best charts and graphs will not convince people like real life stories.
But if they report on news like that then they will be afraid of being seen as taking sides. For the sake of "balance", they must keep mum.
Only slightly OT, have you ever seen any consumer reporter/advocate segments on what Obamacare has in store for the average working American?
No one would care even if they did report about how the sequester will make my life and my friends lives more difficult. Cutting 20% from our household budget will be difficult but doable. We are older and settled and to be honest have lived on a lot less.
A story about how I won't be able to go to the new sandwich shop downtown and leave a $20 tip so the couple that are trying to make it through the first year of opening an restaurant can worry a little less about paying the bills doesn't move people.
The story of the young couple that just bought the house down the street wouldn't move people either. She will probably have to leave her new baby and go back to work so they can afford to pay the bills, but so do a lot of people.
The produce stand that I stop at every Tuesday for fresh vegetables won't close because I don't stop by. I'll buy the cheap half rotten vegs from the supermarket and wash them very well. Hopefully most of the pesticides will wash off before I feed them to my children.
The hotel we were going to stay at during Spring Break won't really miss the few nights we won't be there. I don't suppose the restaurants we would have eaten at or the places we would have visited won't either.
For every $100 we don't get paid the Federal Government will not receive $28 in federal income tax, $12.50 in Social Security, and $1.45 in medicare tax. They probably won't miss that either. The State might miss the $5.75 in state income tax but probably not.
The busker playing his guitar might mind that he will get a dollar less for his efforts each time I pass by, but judging by his songs he's used to that.
The impact of this is too subtle on the big scale to notice. It will easily be explained away with other things. The only people that will be moved by this are the people that are being used as pawns in these political games. My family, my friends, my neighbors. We'll be moved by it and we'll remember the people that caused these problems.
For the record, it is a cut in the rate of growth in spending, not spending. This will now allow the idiots in govt from declaring stupid cuts, like WH tours. There has to be some sensible savings in a 1+ trillion discretionary budget
Sorry to be cynical and more than a tad suspicious, but what are the GOP wanting in return? They don't seem to be capable of agreeing to anything without an alterior motive.
A clear field for taking the debt ceiling hostage next month.
What the GOP and NRA got from this bill...I heard Andrea Mitchel say on MSNBC that there is a tiny amendment in the bill that FORBIDS the Federal Government from inacting any gun laws. Does any one have any knowledge of this?
How enforceable is a law passed by Congress which forbids a future Congress from passing a law?
Yeah, that.
Democrats run from another fight.
Either they don't have a strategy or don't have any leadership, but no matter, 2013 has so far been a terrible year for them.
Wat? LOL
Wat? LOL
Wat? LOL
I repeat, having a SN called "bannedagain" is not going to end well. But thanks for the summary of regurgitated, Limbaugh inspired rhetoric. That's always nice to know.
The amount of derp in those two sentences is pretty amazing. I have to admit, I am impressed so much ignorance could fit into two little sentences. Seriously. Well done.
Had Democrats simply done nothing at all at the end of the year, they would have had all the increased tax revenue they could have wanted but would have been stuck with the sequester cuts.
Instead, they traded a much smaller revenue increase for the sequester cuts anyway.
It's mind boggling to think how badly they handled this.
PLUS, Obama is still talking about making changes to CPI which would not have been necessary at all, had they let the fiscal cliff happen.
Oh and the killer of all, they passed a continuing resolution WITH the sequester cuts, but WITHOUT demanding a suspension of the debt ceiling for the duration of the CR!
How stupid can you get?
and don't forget the Harry Reid agreement that there would be fewer filibusters, unless of course the Republicans feel like having one
banned: If you think 2013 is a failure for Democrats, how did you not slash your wrists from 2010 to 2011? Literally every major issue the Democrats have the public squarely on their side. It's only March 21...
Lebo:
If they have the public on their side (which I do believe by the way), how come they keep voting for things they are against like the sequester, and against things they are for, like filibuster reform?
4 times trying to shut down the government.
37 votes to end Obamacare.
How many jobs bills have the Republicans passed?
Still their supporters think that they're doing a wonderful job.
(Scratches his head.)
Thank you for demonstrating the definition of insanity. "Doing the same failed thing in expectation of a different outcome."
Come on after 30 years of trickle down insanity they still believe this time they can make it work. Even worse is their supporters like banned who believe any day now they will be lifted up into the 1% club, they are just 1 lotto ticket away from easy street, after all they have to stand in line for the lotto ticket which is hard work to the right. Now how insane do righties need to get before they start opening mental wards for the insane right.
I wish I could be as bad at my job as some of these legislators are and still get all the perks of office that they receive and not have to worry about being fired for years. Must be nice.
Their real job is fundraising. It's not what we sent them for, but they get to write their own rules.
It is time to change the stakes that these republicans are willing to destroy our economy to save. Time for them to live like the rest of us. And worry about their futures like the rest of us. Then you would see a whole new attitude in Congress.
We could solve a LOT of problems in this country if we just required that politicians live by the same rules as the rest of us.
Put THEM in 401-K's and Social Security for their retirement; put THEM in Medicare; have THEM follow the same "truth in advertising" laws businesses have to follow, let THEM pay for their own vacations instead of the taxpayers sending them on junkets; have THEM obey the law on discriminatory employment practices,Make Politicians Take a Pay Cut Before Cutting Money from Education and Social Services!
Hey they should cut their own benefits and services. no more lifetime benefits for 4 years of service!
They should NOT be getting lifetime health coverage when they have the money to pay on their own!
While too many find this as some sort of virtuous sign of frugality, in fact this is a form of theft from the taxpayer. We, the People, provide Members of Congress salaries that -- while far from those of the K Street LObyist crowd -- put them at three times the average American wage, provide them free gym access (where Paul Ryan ever so loves to work on on other peoples' dimes), give them far more generous health insurance than the vast majority of their constituents have, and provide what all but the most-pampered CEO would call lavish retirement (without counting the $s from revolving door (lack of ethics) lobbying that enriches so many on leaving office)
Members of Congress sleeping in the office are thus playing on the edge to eek out even more compensation from the taxpayer. They convert use of a space -- that we have paid for -- intended for work into living space as they avoid rent.
They use resources (whether for hot plates, showers, or others) that we have to pay for in utility bills.
And, from another aspect, they hinder the economy by living in tax-free, government furnished space rather than taking their salaries to pay for living space, furniture, utilities, and other things in the private economy
Their pay should be whatever the median wage is in America for the previous year. If median wage goes down they take a pay cut, if median wage goes up, they get a raise. That way we know they will be working for us.
Excellent post; I would only add term limits and a restriction to joining a lobbyist or special interest group for at least 10 years..........
We already have term limits every 2 and 4 years. Really where do you righties come up with this insanity about term limits, here is a clue why are you willing to replace a congress person that works for you to replace him with someone who may or may not work for you. Why are righties for this insanity, they hope they can replace hard working democrats with vacationing republicans, see we already know what is behind this push for term limits, the states that actually done term limits soon found republicans who started yelling term limits were unfair to THEM.
Eight years max; need new experience and thought process unlike what happens now. Righties? Could care less about left and right. Both sides are just AFU.....When the % of voters rises above 50 in all elections maybe you might have a valid point.
Absolutely. Make them even more dependent on outside money (like "consulting" gigs after leaving office). I'm sure that that will cause them to put the needs of their constituents ahead of their future employers.
I swear, I'd rather spend the trivial amounts required to pay them for life on the condition that they give up all other income.
I used to like the idea of term limits but the problem I have is that, believe it or not, some of our congressmen really do the job they were elected to do. Why just arbitrarily get rid of them after a specific amount of time. If you really think they arent doing their job then you have the option of voting for someone else.
arale: This notion that we should make lawmakers less well off financially will only give us lousier lawmakers. Cut off the incentive to serve, and you will reap what you sow. It's no different than business or medicine, people will strive for jobs that pay well. And you mention "Medicare" like it's a negative, it's the best of the best to have Medicare. You kind of remind me of a big employer, trying to give out "incentive" by screwing over...
The news media is like a double-edged sword. Some news media will pay for info they get and some will not. And I wonder sometimes which is really better, because when you pay nothing that is like saying your not worth a thing and yet at the same time rake in huge profits from listeners and advertisers. In a sense it is really just as hypocritical as rich bastards making excuses for why they don’t want to pay for something. But can richly and very profitably take in all the wealth from what they report and how popular they become as a result of regular contributors looking to help improve the world. The money just keeps rolling in and their pockets get fuller and fuller and just regular people get left hanging who have been contributors and who really do want to help change the world for the better. As always this is one issue I will never quite get over, since it is in a sense just as reflective of takers. Now the excuses to why this can be allowed will fly, but you simply cannot ignore the impression left behind it all. They say nothing is free, but there has been certain news media groups who has been getting plenty of things for free, especially when so many people sit without employment or have been placed in desperate straights.
Now can we restart Congress, it seems to not to be running at all well.
News "CONGRESS RUNS AGAIN"? or we wait so patiently for the next election and ... and ...
A couple years ago, I was on the edge of my seat about the possibility of a shutdown. Now, I'd actually forgotten is was an imminent possibility. This is how far we've slid- crises are so routine that many, even news junkies like myself, aren't aware they're happening.
So instead of an amendment to actually pay for the authorized spending, the Senate just kicked the can down the road so that we can have another debt-ceiling hostage crisis in a couple of months -- which Republicans are apparently salivating to do.
Brilliant. Flipping brilliant.
No Republican with close ties to business interests is "salivating" over a debt ceiling crises. Only the craziest crazies are pushing that...
I'd feel a lot more comforted if the "craziest of crazies" didn't control one House of Congress.
I've got a question for Speaker Boehner, perhaps after a bit of research a journalist could pose it to the speaker
"The House just passed a continuing budget resolution for the rest of fiscal year 2013 and passed a new budget resolution for fiscal year 2014. How much should the debt ceiling be raised in order for the borrowing authority of the US to exceed the amount of money the House of Representatives has just appropriated? Do you support an increase in the debt ceiling of an amount to cover the budget your house just appropriated?"
In otherwords, does the speaker support raising the credit limit in an appropriate amount of spending the House just authorized? And if he does not, why not?
This is simply insane that the House wants to pass resolutions and then are shocked SHOCKED when there are consequences.
Do we really have an idea of what keeps happening? On both ears, we hear the deafening dunderheaded condition of saying, NO, NO, NO COMPROMISE, NOT EVER COMPROMISE until we have PST claim. It's the debt, it's the deficit, and it's the Google Twitter behind the tree. Yet drip by drip, bit by bit, nip by nip in the silence of the night we see compromise, compromise, compromise, first a trickle, then a stream, then a river then a flood.
An once the water have receded we hear in the warmth of spring a peep, and another peep and whole forest swamp claiming no, no, no, compromise, not ever compromise, while we sleep to the next election.