No Shutdown, Is It Worth It? [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : No Shutdown, Is It Worth It?

Kathianne

05-01-2017, 06:21 PM

So is everyone happy with the 'Victory' funding bill?

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-01/congress-strikes-tentative-deal-on-1-1-trillion-spending-bill

Spending Deal That Jettisons His Goals

<address class="lede-text-only__byline" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 3px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; font-family: TiemposTextWeb-Regular, Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: normal; color: rgb(118, 118, 118);">by Billy House
, Erik Wasson
, and Laura Litvan
</address><time class="article-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2017-05-01T01:49:53.572Z" data-type="updated" data-status="localized" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">April 30, 2017, 6:49 PM MST</time><time class="article-timestamp" itemprop="dateModified" datetime="2017-05-01T17:50:03.208Z" data-type="updated" data-status="localized" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">May 1, 2017, 10:50 AM MST

</time>President Donald Trump said he’ll sign a bipartisan $1.1 trillion spending bill that largely tracks Democratic priorities and rejects most of his wish list, including funds for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We’re very happy with it,” the president said Monday in an interview with Bloomberg News. The plan would allocate some new funding for border security, though the funds couldn’t be used to build his promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The president said he will sign the bill if it remains "as we discussed."

The compromise measure, announced early Monday morning, would keep the government open through the end of September. Under House procedures, a vote could be held as early as Wednesday. The plan drew howls of protest from conservatives.

...

The White House sought funding to begin building the wall, as well as $18 billion in cuts to domestic agencies, and both demands were rebuffed. The spending deal includes money for Planned Parenthood, despite Republican demands to defund the group over its provision of abortions.

Trump will be able to point to a $15 billion boost for the Pentagon, although $2.5 billion of that money is contingent on the administration delivering a new plan to fight Islamic State. It also falls well short of the $30 billion he had originally requested.

Border Security

Trump will get $1.5 billion for border security, but it can’t be used for the border wall or additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/0006698D:US) agents, according to one congressional aide. There are also no new restrictions on money going to so-called sanctuary cities that don’t fully enforce federal immigration laws.

...

Overall, the compromise resembles more of an Obama administration-era spending bill than a Trump one. The National Institutes of Health (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/0834632D:US), for example, would see a $2 billion boost, reflecting the popularity of medical research among lawmakers. The deal includes $990 million for famine aid, along with a $1.1 billion boost for disaster recovery funds.

...

Defense Increase

He said the measure represents a $25 billion increase in national defense funding over current levels, when extra money former President Barack Obama secured in December is included. In addition, he noted provisions including an extension of miners’ health benefits and increases in health research and opioid addiction treatment and prevention.

The Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/0219210Z:US), which Trump has sought to shrink dramatically, would receive a 1 percent reduction of $81 million in funding and no staff cuts.

The deal also includes steady or slight increases in funding for agencies within the Department of Energy (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/4131721Z:US), such the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which would get a $17 million increase, and the Office of Science, which would get a boost of $42 million compared to fiscal 2016 funding levels, the aide said. The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, which aims to fund experimental energy research and has been targeted for elimination by the Trump administration, would get a $15 million increase.
...

The package would provide $68 million extra in local law enforcement funds to reimburse New York City and other localities for protecting Trump.

Democrats’ Praise

“This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday night in a statement. “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders, and increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.”

...

Meanwhile, since he wants 'infrastructure' he's looking at a gas tax increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/news/economy/trump-gas-tax/

Trump says he will 'certainly consider' raising the gas tax

by Julia Horowitz (http://money.cnn.com/author/julia-horowitz/index.html) @juliakhorowitz (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=juliakhorowitz)May 1, 2017: 4:29 PM ET

...

Kathianne

05-02-2017, 11:20 AM

It appears I'm the only one surprised that Trump didn't stand tough on the funding, especially regarding his wall.

Today it appears he has heard all the criticisms of his happiness over avoiding the shutdown and is ready to stand tough, with the next budget or election or something. Of course, it involves tweets. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-shutdown-tweet/

Donald Trump: Our country needs a good 'shutdown,' suggests Senate rule change
(http://www.cnn.com/profiles/david-wright)By David Wright (http://www.cnn.com/profiles/david-wright), CNN

Updated 10:07 AM ET, Tue May 2, 2017

...

jimnyc

05-02-2017, 11:35 AM

He's being lead, even though he is the boss. Ryan SUCKS and I hope he disappears. In fact, ALL of congress sucks. This is where the R's who have the majority, should be standing tough and make changes.

Ain't much different than when we expected major healthcare changes, and Ryan dropped a piece of crap. He needs to go, IMO.

jimnyc

05-02-2017, 11:51 AM

pete311

05-02-2017, 01:07 PM

Mick Mulvaney during press conference says no shutdown. I can see why Trump likes this guy. He's a viper. Very sharp.

Kathianne

05-02-2017, 01:22 PM

I didn't realize that they needed 60 votes instead of the 51. That's why I was pissed at them not jamming things through. I was REAL pissed when I saw the crap about planned parenthood.

Hopefully there are other ways to fund and/or defund things, that really only do require 51, keeping the obstructionists out of things?

---

Family Research Council Explains Why GOP Did Not Cut Planned Parenthood Funding (Yet)

Conservatives are rightly concerned that the GOP decided to keep funding Planned Parenthood in the new omnibus spending package, which funds the government until September. With the majority in both houses of Congress, why could Republicans not finally strike tax dollars from the controversial pro-abortion organization?

The Family Research Council has provided an explanation. The omnibus bill, FRC notes, is not the best way to defund Planned Parenthood because it requires 60 votes, while a separate piece of legislation would only need 51 votes.

Rest here - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/05/02/family-research-council-explains-why-gop-did-not-cut-planned-parenthood-funding-n2321054

It is reasonable that you and people in general don't know the Senate rules, though I assume you would learn them if you were going to enter politics, no? Trump had to know, unless he isn't listening to those that do.

Exactly how was Ryan or others supposed to get Trump's ideas through if he can't get the additional votes? He said himself, 'He is the deal maker.'

There is a problem in that Trump should have known that many of those in Congress regardless of party do not agree with many of his stated positions, especially those that change, seemingly at whim. The reality though is they know they need to compromise to get anything done, they keep moving towards the goals. One could argue that is what Trump is doing with this, but he needs to be the one to start that argument. Yesterday he was celebrating the spending, today he's talking about shutting down at the next crossing, as if this was some mistake. That is confusing.

Being President, heck even being Speaker or Senate Majority leader, are not the same as being a CEO, one can thank the Framers for that. It is hard and majority rule isn't the order of the day, even when it is in effect. Different interests, positions, parties, constituencies, come into play. Often. Pushing through something 'because you can' means there will be a price to pay down the road. (Ask Obama and Reid).

Where this presidency goes from here is anyone's guess. It could be that Trump really will educate himself about not listening to the last person that says what he wants to hear. He may learn to not just put out threats one minute, then cave and call it a 'Win' the next. I think he's capable, the question is will he?

Black Diamond

05-02-2017, 01:42 PM

Ryan is right when he says there are some wins in there but there aren't enough wins for me.

jimnyc

05-02-2017, 01:53 PM

It is reasonable that you and people in general don't know the Senate rules, though I assume you would learn them if you were going to enter politics, no? Trump had to know, unless he isn't listening to those that do.

Exactly how was Ryan or others supposed to get Trump's ideas through if he can't get the additional votes? He said himself, 'He is the deal maker.'

There is a problem in that Trump should have known that many of those in Congress regardless of party do not agree with many of his stated positions, especially those that change, seemingly at whim. The reality though is they know they need to compromise to get anything done, they keep moving towards the goals. One could argue that is what Trump is doing with this, but he needs to be the one to start that argument. Yesterday he was celebrating the spending, today he's talking about shutting down at the next crossing, as if this was some mistake. That is confusing.

Being President, heck even being Speaker or Senate Majority leader, are not the same as being a CEO, one can thank the Framers for that. It is hard and majority rule isn't the order of the day, even when it is in effect. Different interests, positions, parties, constituencies, come into play. Often. Pushing through something 'because you can' means there will be a price to pay down the road. (Ask Obama and Reid).

Where this presidency goes from here is anyone's guess. It could be that Trump really will educate himself about not listening to the last person that says what he wants to hear. He may learn to not just put out threats one minute, then cave and call it a 'Win' the next. I think he's capable, the question is will he?

From what I am reading and to understand though, is that this is all par for the course, that these bills aren't the place to get the votes for the "tough stuff" as I call it, or I guess partisan things. And I would surely consider defunding PP as partisan (and I'm ALL for it), as well as the wall (even though I think it should be an American thing). I guess my point is, other than blabber mouth calling himself a deal maker, this bill is par for the course. No deal maker was going to get that stuff through, especially so the wall. A bunch on the left swore from the get go that they would never go along with the wall.

And yeah, that's simply how it is, needing to compromise in order to get things done - when they need 60 votes. There have to be better times and ways of trying to defund things and/or get funding for other projects, and apparently appropriation bills aren't that time.

Perhaps he isn't the deal maker he thought he was, and certainly not in congress. But no matter how great one's skills are, if the other side obstructs, and your own side isn't entirely on board, then your skills are dead on arrival.

jimnyc

05-02-2017, 01:57 PM

Ryan is right when he says there are some wins in there but there aren't enough wins for me.

I guess it's not unexpected that both sides vote solely along party lines for the most part, and of course things are entered or removed based along party lines. And now we know why, I suppose, that such a bill needs 60 votes. Otherwise, toss in the wall, toss in defunding PP... and the Dems really wouldn't have been able to stop it.

But the next question is - from someone who has NO CLUE about how such things work - HOW and WHERE do republicans put a bill to defund PP where the voting will only need 51? And the same for funding, and yes the wall, but even for other things? Or is this type of bill the only way to go until the next time the government is potentially facing a shutdown and needs funding?

jimnyc

05-02-2017, 02:07 PM

At least it has a nice bump for our military. And granted, the wall should have been started already, and I'm pissed at that, at least they now have 1.5 billion to work on border security. Maybe at least it can be helpful until and if a wall ever gets funded/started. And maybe good news about PP?

---

Donald Trump: Military Spending and Border Security a ‘Clear Win’ in Budget Deal

President Donald Trump praised Republicans in Congress on Tuesday for passing additional spending for the military and border security in their budget deal with Democrats.

He described the bill as a “clear win” for the American people and called the process “hotly contested.”

The deal includes $1.5 billion for border security and a $21 billion increase in defense spending.

“There will never be a time when we are spending more money,” Trump said about military spending, promising the best equipment and resources for the armed forces.

Trump made his remarks during his speech at the White House, awarding the Commander-in-Chief Trophy to the Air Force Academy football team for defeating Army and Navy rivals.

“We are at last reversing years of military cuts and showing our determination and resolve to the rest of the world,” he said.

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/02/trump-military-spending-border-security-clear-win-budget-deal/

....

Paul Ryan: ‘Planned Parenthood Is Not Funded’ in Budget Reconciliation Bill

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Tuesday during a press conference that “Planned Parenthood is not funded” in the budget reconciliation bill that Republicans should be able to get through the Senate with only 51 votes.

Ryan differentiated between the omnibus appropriations bill – which Republicans negotiated with Democrats – and the budget reconciliation bill, and said the former requires 60 votes in the Senate, while the latter only requires 51 votes.

“Look at what all our pro-life groups are saying,” Ryan said. “They’re saying that Planned Parenthood legislation needs to be in the reconciliation bill – as it is – because that’s how you get it into law.”

Ryan continued:

We always knew that it takes 60 votes to pass an appropriations bill through the Senate. This bill does not have funding for Planned Parenthood. That’s important. The reconciliation bill advances the pro-life cause even further. So, no Planned Parenthood funding in here. And, by the way, [HHS Secretary] Tom Price is now the person who approves grants that go out to the states. So, we feel very comfortable we are working hand in glove with the administration to advance our pro-life priorities.

So, number one – they’re advanced here. We keep all our Hyde Amendment riders. And then our reconciliation bill – that’s the bill that you don’t need 60 votes on – that’s the bill that you don’t need to have Democrats with, and that’s the bill that where we’re advancing our cause even further, and that’s why these two efforts in conjunction with one another advance our cause and our principles quite a bit.

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/02/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood-not-funded-budget-reconciliation-bill/

Black Diamond

05-02-2017, 02:14 PM

I guess it's not unexpected that both sides vote solely along party lines for the most part, and of course things are entered or removed based along party lines. And now we know why, I suppose, that such a bill needs 60 votes. Otherwise, toss in the wall, toss in defunding PP... and the Dems really wouldn't have been able to stop it.

But the next question is - from someone who has NO CLUE about how such things work - HOW and WHERE do republicans put a bill to defund PP where the voting will only need 51? And the same for funding, and yes the wall, but even for other things? Or is this type of bill the only way to go until the next time the government is potentially facing a shutdown and needs funding?
I remember obolshevik care getting shoved up our asses with no republican support. Reconciliation ?

Kathianne

05-02-2017, 02:18 PM

From what I am reading and to understand though, is that this is all par for the course, that these bills aren't the place to get the votes for the "tough stuff" as I call it, or I guess partisan things. And I would surely consider defunding PP as partisan (and I'm ALL for it), as well as the wall (even though I think it should be an American thing). I guess my point is, other than blabber mouth calling himself a deal maker, this bill is par for the course. No deal maker was going to get that stuff through, especially so the wall. A bunch on the left swore from the get go that they would never go along with the wall.

And yeah, that's simply how it is, needing to compromise in order to get things done - when they need 60 votes. There have to be better times and ways of trying to defund things and/or get funding for other projects, and apparently appropriation bills aren't that time.

Perhaps he isn't the deal maker he thought he was, and certainly not in congress. But no matter how great one's skills are, if the other side obstructs, and your own side isn't entirely on board, then your skills are dead on arrival.

You're correct. Here's my problem though, both with his mouth and tweets and what I'm reading from many; rather than working on figuring out why so many 'on the right' find him near impossible or impossible to support, they are attacking them rather than the left. Like it or not, the bottom line in politics is keeping one's eye on the long game and making compromises or 'deals' to get there. Like I said, an argument could be made that it is what is going on with this bill, but it's got to be 'made.' Just claiming a 'Win' like he did yesterday, then making a mess of it with his tweet today, is not making that case.

It's obvious that his ego really does not like when he gets negative press, especially from the right. Polls either. He just cannot overreact to them, but seems unable to stop himself. If there are 'great advisers' surrounding him, they are being ignored. That is not good on many levels.

The questions I have is why so many 'issues' were left out? The wall is something the left would have gone for shutdown with. PP? I doubt it, but maybe. The increase in funding the EPA? Energy? National Lands? No. He is not cutting spending, why? Many insisted he is a NY liberal and big spender. He's always been against any changes in entitlement programs, the only reform that would actually bring down spending and the deficits. Now with all the talk, which is just that, he is considering raising the federal tax on gas. Because he can.

hjmick

05-02-2017, 03:37 PM

Shit, the Democrats couldn't have gotten a better if they'd written it themselves...

NightTrain

05-02-2017, 04:38 PM

Should have shut her down. I don't like this caving to the democrats business. If the last vestige of filibuster needs to be nuked, then do it up.

Stage is set for big fireworks Oct. 1st.

aboutime

05-02-2017, 06:36 PM

Another, major disappointment for the Democrats. They really wanted to have the govt. shut-down, to blame Trump for being unable to run the show.

Looks like it backfired for them. And now....Trump will no longer have the Obama budget to worry about come October.

Funny thing is...Nancy and her ignorant liberal friends have declared another VICTORY.

http://youtu.be/F5Iz1LGVtBI

Abbey Marie

05-02-2017, 09:38 PM

Wall not funded, Planned Parenthood abortions are.

I've seen better days.

Gunny

05-04-2017, 06:18 PM

The whole shutdown thing is a sham. It only applies to Civil Service employees. Military and elected officials have to take up the slack. Then, the Civil Service gets back pay once the budget IS finally signed. Lived through THAT little farce one year.

jimnyc

05-04-2017, 06:38 PM

Wall not funded, Planned Parenthood abortions are.

I've seen better days.

PP isn't getting funded, hopefully.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/02/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood-not-funded-budget-reconciliation-bill/