Government Shutdown

[SilverFang01]

McConnell blocks House bill to reopen government for second time

Once more, the Senate has blocked a bill to re-open the government. At this point I believe is less about the wall and more about the GOP throwing a tantrum for the drubbing received in the mid-terms.

Also, the libertarians must be happy with this:
‘Senior Trump Official’ On Shutdown: ‘We Do Not Want Most Employees To Return’

So, rather than dismiss the employees, pay them whatever severance is due, and give them a clear indication that their position is terminated, you just lock the doors, cut off their pay checks and keep telling them ‘soon’ when it comes to them getting paid again until they’re forced to find other work or starve.

I absolutely can’t understand how Trump managed to bankrupt multiple businesses with such incredible stable genius at work.

[Dartz]

If the government can't spend money today?

Why can't it promise it tomorrow?

Like a sort of Double-Dollar. A promise to pay for services in real dollers in six months, or a year or so, that'll fall under that year's budget. Because the US is so good at paying it's debts off then the Double-Dollar should be as functional as an actual dollar, with approximately equivelant value.,

[hazard]

The more the Democrats have to push the bills from the House to the Senate to reopen the government, the worse it will end up for the Republicans.

I've always gotten the impression that the Republicans had a slight(ish) edge when it comes to how much of the government workforce votes for them, but with this? This is going massively impact their popularity, especially since the only ones that appear to be actively trying to push for a reopening of the government is the Democrats. I mean, it's not as if the Senate is pushing bills to the House asking for them to vote on them to reopen the government, right?

And if this keeps going on, for more than a month or so, I would not be surprised for both federal (ex-)employees and the people whose livelihood depended on them to start making noise about things like recall elections and start making petitions for them.

And McConnell's up for reelection in 2020. If there's a lot of federal employees in the districts he gets elected in, the longer this lasts the worse it will end up for him. People care about their money quite a lot.

[LynnInDenver]

I realized there's going to be a hard limit, impossible to get around, that will be "REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT OR YOU HAVE BIGGER TROUBLES". And that's when enough ATC folks just up and quit (because they're being forced to work without pay, which means they're paying for transportation and other stuff that they can no longer afford and keep the roof over their head) that they have to close at least one major hub that supports at least one major shipping company (doesn't matter much which one) because it's no longer possible to operate the airport involved. At which point, we're probably already past the tipping point where the economy is crashing, and crashing hard enough it's not a recession, it's a Depression.

[classicdrogn]

When is the Secret Service up for budget approval? When it's the safety of Trump's own personal buttocks on the line, then I'll believe he thinks about the consequences of his tantrum.

[hazard]

Pretty sure the Secret Service is under the Department of Homeland Security these days, and if it isn't it's because it's under the Treasury still.

I think both aren't funded currently.

[classicdrogn]

Only one thing to say to that, I guess:

[robkelk]

CBC Analysis: How could the partial U.S. government shutdown end? 5 scenarios

With no solution to the record impasse in sight, the 2 sides agree to blame each other

1. Trump caves

Another sign he is unlikely to do it? Trump has already refused a potential compromise to reopen the government now while continuing negotiations on the wall.

2. Democrats give in

Democrats giving in to Trump's demands is perhaps the least likely scenario, especially with most Americans placing the blame on the other team. Democratic leaders have also repeatedly pointed out that Trump promised Mexico would pay, arguing that Congress shouldn't.

3. The art of the deal

Sen. Lindsey Graham, once a foe of Trump but now an ally, suggested a compromise on the Dreamers as a possible shutdown endgame. The hope is that such a deal would be a big enough win for the Democrats to get them to budge on wall funding.

4. All eyes on the Senate

All eyes, as usual, are on the Senate. If enough Republicans there defect, that could force a vote on a measure to open the government, regardless of whether it includes funding for the wall.

5. Trump ups the ante

And an emergency declaration wouldn't completely solve the shutdown issue; Trump and the Democrats would still need to negotiate a bill to open the closed agencies.

[SilverFang01]

Number four would be a non-starter unless they moved to replace McConnell as Majority Leader.

[DHBirr]

Trust our Great Leader Windrip to [sarcasm mode] find a solution:

They'll come back to work.  They just won't get paid for it.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it was bringing thousands of furloughed inspectors and other employees back to work, while the Internal Revenue Service released a plan to have 46,000 of its 80,000 employees on the job for tax-filing season, up from about 10,000.

I'm wondering if he'll also declare it illegal for people to resign from government agencies.

-----
No, it ISN'T what it is!

[Labster]

Nah, McConnell is a pragmatist, and not really a Trump fan. If he senses weakening in the President, he'll switch to the winning bandwagon. He just has to worry about his own reelection in two years.

I'm wondering if he'll also declare it illegal for people to resign from government agencies.

Reminds me of Ghost in the Shell, when it was illegal to export a programmer vital to national security.

I rate 5 as the most likely, because it takes the issue off the table for now, and pushes it into the courts. Then Republicans can reopen the government without appearing to cave to Democrats.

Oh, and Nancy Pelosi says no State of the Union address unless the government is open. If he's got a problem with that, well, he can submit it in writing. If it was good enough for George Washington, it's good enough for anyone. Except maybe someone looking to get an hour of free air time.

[hazard]

Nah, Nancy Pelosi is saying 'it's probably not a good idea to do a State of the Union address while the government's shutdown because it's a massive security headache. Maybe you should delay it, do it from the White House or submit one in writing?'

It's slightly more crafty than you'd think. Either she gets her funding bills passed, or she gets to hammer on Trump and the Republicans not caring about the plights of the federal employees who are forced to work without pay.

There's no way Trump will not want to make a live address.

[classicdrogn]

I'm hoping for protesters interrupting myself. "Shut down Trump!" would do for a fine chant in the standard three-syllable format.

[Jinx999]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201..._trap.html

There's no way in HELL this would actually work, but I do know some right-wing Americans who WANT this to happen.

[hazard]

I predict that either that happens, and in that case please lay off the entire IRS, then simply don't give people tax returns while demanding they keep paying with automated systems that don't get told people already paid. Or the month after the shutdown passes there's a hiring craze as government agencies desperately try to fill positions left vacant, causing just as much if not even more trouble due to the loss of so much institutional knowledge and a workforce unready for the task ahead.

Either way, trouble.

[robkelk]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201..._trap.html

There's no way in HELL this would actually work, but I do know some right-wing Americans who WANT this to happen.

I noticed this quote from the "unidentified senior Trump official" and decided immediately not to bother wasting time reading the entire piece:

Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president's agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president's agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them.

Whoever wrote that either misunderstands who civil servants work for, or wants everyone else to believe a falsehood.

The civil service does not work for the current occupant of the Oval Office, or 10 Downing, or 24 Sussex, or whatever the equivalent is in your country. The civil service works for the sovereign - and in the USA, the sovereign is The People. If the current occupant of the Oval Office wants something done that will damage The People, it is the USA's civil service's duty to deny that request, or to work around it if it cannot be denied.

And the last few elections in the USA have made it quite clear that The People do not currently speak with one voice.

If Trump can't handle being told "no", then he should never have gone into politics in the first place.

[LynnInDenver]

About the only thing gotten right is the interpretation of WHY it's deliberately hard to get rid of a government employee unless they do something to deserve firing - to keep new leadership from sweeping in and basically replacing everyone with people more to the liking (read: will do what THEY want, not what's actually needed).

The thing is, the only people who might like what's being attempted are the people who are so all-in on Trump that they feel like the other side now needs to be entrapped and baited. If it's true, and it becomes clear that they're attempting to hand Democrats a literal No Win Scenario (Expensive Useless Wall or potentially hundreds of thousands being put out of work for no good reason than the Extreme Capitalist idea that Redundancy Is Bad), they're going to close off another segment of the population from voting Republican. Certainly that will be the case of most of the people they boot out the door as "redundant", or those whose land gets taken for that wall.

And I'm willing to bet, if the RIF actually happens? That they'll find out the hard way that a lot of those people weren't actually as redundant and useless as they think, although for them that's probably a FEATURE instead of a bug.

[Jinx999]

It's also a way of getting rid of the incredibly corrupt "spoils system" .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

[SilverFang01]

Nah, Nancy Pelosi is saying 'it's probably not a good idea to do a State of the Union address while the government's shutdown because it's a massive security headache. Maybe you should delay it, do it from the White House or submit one in writing?'

It's slightly more crafty than you'd think. Either she gets her funding bills passed, or she gets to hammer on Trump and the Republicans not caring about the plights of the federal employees who are forced to work without pay.

There's no way Trump will not want to make a live address.

And in retaliation the Toddler-in-Chief has denied Speaker Pelosi the use of a military aircraft for what was supposed to be a secret trip to a war zone: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/...index.html

So in case you were wondering whether Trump would ever attempt to use his authority as Commander in Chief to leverage the power of America’s Armed Forces against political enemies in a co-equal branch, the answer is yes.

[robkelk]

FCC asks for delay in the appeal against its net neutrality repeal because of the partial US government shutdown.

In response, the petitoners have pointed out 16 motions for delay during the 2013 government shutdown that were denied.

And at the end of the article, we see an update giving the court's decision on the motion to delay.

[Bob Schroeck]

Snopes on "RIF" firings after 30 days: Mostly false.

Apparently the "reduction in force" firings can only happen in the case of administrative furloughs, “a planned event by an agency which is designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, reduced funding, lack of work, or any budget situation other than a lapse in appropriations.” Government shutdowns don't qualify.

ETA: Great image macro on the page, btw.

[DHBirr]

And in retaliation the Toddler-in-Chief has denied Speaker Pelosi the use of a military aircraft for what was supposed to be a secret trip to a war zone: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/...index.html

So in case you were wondering whether Trump would ever attempt to use his authority as Commander in Chief to leverage the power of America’s Armed Forces against political enemies in a co-equal branch, the answer is yes.

It's worse than leveraging the Armed Forces.  He breached security — twice, spilling the schedule of her commercial flight arrangements after the military aircraft was denied.  If terrorists in that war zone decided to kidnap or assassinate a senior U.S. government official who just happens to be the Dotard's political enemy ... well, I'm sure he'd wink and nudge about it, y'know....

Jennifer Rubin, formerly nicknamed "Jennghazi" for her fixation on Clinton's alleged responsibility for the Benghazi disaster, said:

This stunning violation of his duties as commander in chief in order to serve his petty personal desire for revenge tells us just how unfit Trump is to serve.

[Labster]

California offers unemployment benefits to unpaid TSA workers

[Labster]

Today marks the halfway point of Donald Trump's term of office. It's all downhill from here.

He celebrated by spending two and a half minutes at the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial.

[robkelk]

I have to point out: "first term". Nobody thinks he'll get a second term, but nobody thought he'd get a first term, either.