http://thehill.com/homenews/house/349204-house-wont-attach-harvey-relief-to-debt-ceiling-bill
Trump was right. Getting real tired of all of this WINNING!
Stop me from getting so much WINNING! if old.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hill: House of Representatives won't attach Harvey relief to debt ceiling bill
- Thread starter NoName999
- Start date
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/349204-house-wont-attach-harvey-relief-to-debt-ceiling-bill
Trump was right. Getting real tired of all of this WINNING!
Stop me from getting so much WINNING! if old.
uncelestial
Member
Phew, at least there's a little good news in this country today.
benicillin
Banned
Hope they're ready to pay out for Irma, too.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
sounds like he is now trying to tie Wall Funding to Daca dreamers...
Self preservation. The last thing they want to do is piss off Texas voters.
John Rabbit
Banned
I'm a dummy when it comes to this, can someone explain to me why this is a good thing? (It doesn't seem like a bad thing, I just don't understand it).
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
I'm not an American so I'm curious to know what would happen as a result of a government shutdown?
Nonessential federal government services would halt immediately. The national parks would close indefinitely, the White House would stop doing tours, and a lot of federal employees would either be laid off or not get paid. If it lasts for weeks, the funding authorization of Obamacare wouldn't be completed by its deadline, which would cause insurance companies to sue the government for breach of contract, as they require that money to set their rates for the upcoming year.
Ok, not quite. But basically many government services are shut down and operationally inactive. It's a nightmare scenario both fundamentally and politically. For one, the safety and security of the citizens are now at major risk, and two it proves the current administration is unable to properly govern or resolve the issues at hand for the sake of the safety and security of the citizens.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Well..look at that..
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
Thanks for the replies
Judging by how the current admin is doing I'd say outlook doesn't look good
If I were to be bold I'd say they'd let it shutdown for a good while too
Judging by how the current admin is doing I'd say outlook doesn't look good
If I were to be bold I'd say they'd let it shutdown for a good while too
Yep. The shit agenda Republicans wanted really did require the money from ACA, failing that and now two major disaster relief contingencies to deal with across multiple states, not to mention whatever further military action is upcoming(beyond Afghanistan)...this is going to be a real shitstorm on the floor.
Really expect Republicans drop whatever pitifully small shred of empathy they have remaining as deadlines loom and just rip away everything just and right for their corporate and wealth cuts. Fuck the consequences. Fuck shame. America's blood is gonna boil.
There is little chance they let the shutdown occur, and if it did, it wouldn't be for long. The GOP control government: both Houses and the Presidency. Back in 2013 with a Democratic President, most voters blamed the Republicans for the shutdown. There would be no rhetoric or spin possible to explain a shutdown that didn't make the Republicans look incompetent.
The last thing the Republicans want is a shutdown, because that means there is no salvaging anything with their President, and their entire agenda would be rendered invalid.
The last thing the Republicans want is a shutdown, because that means there is no salvaging anything with their President, and their entire agenda would be rendered invalid.
John Rabbit
Banned
"Obstructionist Dems holding gov't hostage over FAILED OBAMACARE! Shutdown on their heads! FL and TX, states I won, need help now!"
They tried that back in February, and quickly caved. That was when trump was at 45+ approval.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
Dems aren't even in control. How the hell do Republicans manage to shut down their own government?
fredrancour
Member
Because the freedom caucus believes the government shouldn't do much of anything
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
All that compassion
LudicrousSpeed
Member
Because people seem to be conflating them, the debt ceiling vote is a lot more catastrophic than just a government shutdown.
Government shutdowns are caused when appropriations for the various government agencies have not been passed by Congress and signed by the President. In the case of a government shutdown, money will continue to be spent on essential services and payments against the national debt will continue to be made.
The debt ceiling is a different thing. Congress appropriates funds each year in the appropriations bills, and the level of funding they select will require a given amount of government borrowing in the form of treasury bonds. If Congress appropriates $2t dollars for government operations but the government only has $1.5t in liquid cash, then the Treasury issues $500bn in treasury bonds, increasing the debt in order to obtain cash that can be spent by the agencies.
Government shutdowns are bad and can deal lasting damage, but if everything shuts down for a few days and then ends, you're more or less going to still be OK in the long run.
Running into the debt limit, however, is a different story. The Treasury department has already been using "extraordinary measures" in order to balance incoming and outgoing payments to make the government remain operational for some time, but we're quickly coming up on the deadline where extraordinary measures are no longer good enough and we won't have enough actual cash to pay for everything that Congress has already demanded they pay for. And, most dangerously, if they run out of money before paying out interest on treasury bonds, then the country's debt is now in default.
Basically:
Government Shutdown: We have the money but haven't been authorized to pay anyone. Anything super essential will continue and will be paid in arrears after everything gets authorized.
Debt Ceiling: We literally do not have the money to pay all our bills. We could easily borrow money to pay those bills, but Congress has forbid us from borrowing any more money.
The debt ceiling thing used to not be a problem, because each and every appropriations bill would come with a debt ceiling increase. This is the logical thing to do, because the entire bind of the debt ceiling comes from the fact that Congress and the President have demanded that the government spend $X dollars, so it only makes sense to give them the statutory authority to borrow enough money that they can actually pay out all $X dollars. This ended in 1995, as the Republicans tried to leverage the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling in order to try to win battles over the size of government appropriations. Since then, budget appropriations and the debt ceiling have been two discrete matters, and that separation has mostly only been used when Republican-controlled Congresses have tried to hold the nation's economic well-being hostage against a Democratic President (1995, 2011, 2013).
Government shutdowns are caused when appropriations for the various government agencies have not been passed by Congress and signed by the President. In the case of a government shutdown, money will continue to be spent on essential services and payments against the national debt will continue to be made.
The debt ceiling is a different thing. Congress appropriates funds each year in the appropriations bills, and the level of funding they select will require a given amount of government borrowing in the form of treasury bonds. If Congress appropriates $2t dollars for government operations but the government only has $1.5t in liquid cash, then the Treasury issues $500bn in treasury bonds, increasing the debt in order to obtain cash that can be spent by the agencies.
Government shutdowns are bad and can deal lasting damage, but if everything shuts down for a few days and then ends, you're more or less going to still be OK in the long run.
Running into the debt limit, however, is a different story. The Treasury department has already been using "extraordinary measures" in order to balance incoming and outgoing payments to make the government remain operational for some time, but we're quickly coming up on the deadline where extraordinary measures are no longer good enough and we won't have enough actual cash to pay for everything that Congress has already demanded they pay for. And, most dangerously, if they run out of money before paying out interest on treasury bonds, then the country's debt is now in default.
Basically:
Government Shutdown: We have the money but haven't been authorized to pay anyone. Anything super essential will continue and will be paid in arrears after everything gets authorized.
Debt Ceiling: We literally do not have the money to pay all our bills. We could easily borrow money to pay those bills, but Congress has forbid us from borrowing any more money.
The debt ceiling thing used to not be a problem, because each and every appropriations bill would come with a debt ceiling increase. This is the logical thing to do, because the entire bind of the debt ceiling comes from the fact that Congress and the President have demanded that the government spend $X dollars, so it only makes sense to give them the statutory authority to borrow enough money that they can actually pay out all $X dollars. This ended in 1995, as the Republicans tried to leverage the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling in order to try to win battles over the size of government appropriations. Since then, budget appropriations and the debt ceiling have been two discrete matters, and that separation has mostly only been used when Republican-controlled Congresses have tried to hold the nation's economic well-being hostage against a Democratic President (1995, 2011, 2013).
Raising the debt ceiling is always a contentious debate. Deficit hawks want to attach amendments that would cut government spending, whereas Democrats are more likely to want to pass a bill that continues funding at current levels (a clean bill).
Attaching Harvey relief would threaten both the debt ceiling being raised (a result that almost everyone agrees could be catastrophic) and relief spending, since many of those deficit hawks also want to cut relief spending (see: Cruz and Sandy) and this would give them an opportunity for two birds with one stone.
Flying Toaster
Member
I am actually surprised that this is happening. I really figured they would combine the two.
Pretty much. It's one party filled with assholes, but there are certain extremes to their assholicism. Some assholes are categorically and biologically more asshole than human, while others are just mostly assholes and still don't feel comfortable becoming monstrous assholes,(they just like being assholes over taxation and corporate deregulation but those other demands are crazy!). Thus you get a room of assholes that share some priorities but can't decide where to draw lines and get anything done.
Flying Toaster
Member
Anyone that believes that the government won't get shut down must really be positive. I see it happening as the administration and the GOP give no F's about how the government works.
John Rabbit
Banned
Okay, thanks for that. Allow me to ask a follow-up if I may.
How does passing a separate bill for Harvey relief not endanger the debt ceiling? You're still allocating money to go toward Harvey relief. Why would that appease deficit hawks?
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Less about that than the fact that they control government and have no excuses - turning this into (another) legislative disaster would fuck up their agenda this fall. Unlike with Sandy, they don't have a democrat president to challenge during an election year. Harvey funds will be easy to pass. Meanwhile they'll raise the debt ceiling with democrat voters, allowing the far right members (House Freedom Caucus) to vote no. It's the smartest play, and the only play.
LudicrousSpeed
Member
So, in and of itself, this news is not so much good or bad. If you had sane representation, this wouldn't matter all that much. At best, what you gain out of having Harvey relief and the debt ceiling run as separate bills is that anyone who opposes the level of Harvey relief wouldn't be voting against an essential operation like increasing the debt ceiling.
There is a fundamental reason why you might tie the two together, and that's because when you appropriate Harvey relief, you appropriate it so you can begin spending it immediately. If you appropriate Harvey relief first, then all it does is move forward the deadline when extraordinary measures stop being enough. The net result of relief-first is that the government will run out of money faster, based on the rate at which you start spending relief funds. If you can pass Harvey relief and the debt ceiling increase in one bill, that's actually a pretty efficient way of doing things, because you can start distributing aid immediately without having to worry about the effect on the debt ceiling.
The problem is that a lot of Congressional Republicans like to use the debt ceiling increases as a chance to re-litigate the debates over government spending that were done at the time of appropriations. So if they demand a cut of $15m against some agency in appropriations, they might get that and be convinced to vote for the appropriations bill, but when it comes time for the debt ceiling increase, which only authorizes the Treasury to borrow money to pay the bills as directed by Congress and the President, now they want a second round of reductions in government spending in exchange for the authority to borrow the money needed to pay for the things Congress authorized already. (In short: They're Assholes.) Those people desperately want the two bills to be unrelated, that way they can oppose the debt ceiling increase without generating campaign ads talking about how they voted against Harvey relief.
Obamacare, the very thing that Republicans ran on to get into power, is the most popular it's ever been. The President is the least popular he's ever been, which is historic in how quickly he fell. A government shutdown while the Republicans control all branches of power would give Dems a powerful message to run on.
Flying Toaster
Member
I understand the optics. But they cannot legislate themselves out of a paper bag at the moment.
Bundling the two together is political brinkmanship. The thinking is, no one is going to vote against the debt ceiling because no one wants to be seen as being against hurricane relief. You're essentially double dog daring deficit hawks to vote against it. Which will just piss them off in the end, and who knows? They actually might vote against it and claim they had no choice.
RPGCrazied
Member
Like they have a choice. It would be political suicide to do this.
Fenderputty
Banned
Paul Ryan has no intention of letting us default