• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

恭喜发财ah! USA Dotard Govt SHUTTING DOWN AGAIN for CNY! HUAT AH!

Ang4MohTrump

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/8/16993196/government-shutdown-2018-second


Log In or Sign Up













The government might shut down again: what we know
How Rand Paul and DACA could cause the second shutdown in three weeks.
By Dylan Scott, Tara Golshan, and Ella Nilsen Feb 8, 2018, 6:35pm EST
Share Tweet Share
GettyImages_896545538.0.jpg
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
It is suddenly a very real possibility that the federal government will shut down at 12:01 am Eastern time Friday for the second time in three weeks. Federal agencies have been told that they should prepare for a government shutdown.

The current federal spending plan expires at midnight. Congressional leaders have struck a deal that would fund the government through March 23 and set up a two-year budget agreement.

But there are two big roadblocks standing in the way of that plan passing Congress and averting another shutdown.

First, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is threatening to prevent the Senate from voting on the new proposal in time, angry over the plan to add hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending in the next few years.

The Senate will vote, eventually, though, and the spending plan is expected to pass the upper chamber. But in the House, a revolt from archconservatives means Republican leaders will need Democratic votes to keep the government open — and it’s not clear right now that they have them. Democratic leaders want assurances that the House will advance legislation addressing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that would give deportation protections to unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children. That’s the same immigration issue the government shut down over last time.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has dug in against the budget deal without an immigration agreement, speaking on the House floor for hours on Wednesday in a passionate plea to resolve the issue.

“Anyone that underestimates the ability of Nancy Pelosi to influence the Democratic caucus shouldn’t be in the business that you are in,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) told reporters on Thursday evening, as the shutdown rapidly began to look more plausible.

Republican leaders and their aides have been projecting confidence that a spending bill will get passed before the midnight deadline. But with Paul becoming more entrenched and Democrats in the House failing to unite around a set strategy, it is a real possibility that the government will shut down — at least technically — for a few hours.

Whether it stays shut down into Friday morning, with workers furloughed, likely depends on the House. But the first problem is in the Senate.

Rand Paul has a big problem with the new massive budget deal
To pass a bill before the government shuts down at midnight, Senate leaders need the agreement of every senator to hold a vote. But Paul is still withholding his consent, angling for a vote on his amendment that would instead preserve the so-called sequestration budget caps. He took to the Senate floor a little before 6 pm to rail against the budget deal, which suggests he is digging in in this shutdown showdown.

Vox’s Tara Golshan ran through the particulars of the spending deal that Senate leaders announced earlier this week. It would fund the government through March 23, in order to give congressional staff the time to write bigger appropriations bills that would actually fund the federal government for the next two years, under the parameters laid out in the budget deal that Congress is about to pass at the same time.

As Golshan explained:

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.

...

This agreement is the result of a fight that goes back to 2011 when an Obama-era impasse over the debt ceiling brought the American economy to near calamity, which ultimately resulted in the 2013 sequester, setting into law across-the-board budget cuts and establishing budget caps that would amount to $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years.

This is what Paul, one of the Senate’s foremost budget hawks, opposes. He believes the spending caps should be kept because federal spending is already too high.

“It spends too much money, borrows too much money. Actually, we’re going to bring back Obama-era deficits. I was elected to combat Obama-era deficits,” the Kentucky senator said on Fox News Thursday evening. “Someone has to stand up and say, ‘You should spend what comes in. We should balance our ledger.’ That used to be what it meant to be conservative.”


But he is one of the few who feel that way, and under the Senate rules, the chamber can start voting at 1 am — with or without Paul. The short-term spending and long-term budget package is expected to receive broad support in the Senate.

But then it will head to the House, where its future is uncertain.

House Democrats are ramping up for their own shutdown standoff over DACA
Both House Democrats and conservative Republicans are threatening to withhold support for a vote that’s hours away.

For conservative Republicans, the budget deal, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced yesterday, is too massive a spending increase. The proposal would increase investments in domestic programs and the military to the tune of $300 billion over the next two years, a major victory for Democrats concerned that a Republican-led government would slash federal programs.

But some Democrats are engaging in a high-risk, last-ditch strategy to ensure the House actually votes on immigration. With enough conservatives voting against the budget proposal, House Republicans need Democratic support to keep the government open. Despite supporting the budget deal on its merits, many House Democrats say they need a promise on a DACA vote as hundreds of thousands young immigrants fear losing protections from deportation and work permits by March 5.

The story changed throughout the day, with different leaders giving different instructions. Around 5 pm, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), a leader on immigration issues, downplayed the shutdown talk. “Sometimes there are whip operations where there are dire consequences for voting no,” he told reporters. “This whip operation is just informational. It’s, ‘How ya feeling?’”

On its face, it’s hard to parse Democratic leaders’ strategy here. Immigration activists have backed off calls for another government shutdown over DACA, especially after many saw the three-day shutdown in late January to be lacking much forethought. But after months of stalled bipartisan immigration negotiations, and a clear lack of urgency from Republican leadership, Democrats are trying to hold House Speaker Paul Ryan’s feet to the fire.

Paul Ryan has given Democrats a lot of reason for doubt over immigration
For months, congressional Republicans have asked Democrats to trust them on immigration. Vote to keep the government open and an immigration deal will come soon, they say.

“These are talks that are occurring in earnest — we want to fix DACA,” Ryan said before the last government shutdown in January.

But House Democrats have reason to be skeptical of Republican leadership on immigration. For all this insistence that negotiations are underway in earnest, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters this week that he hadn’t seen much progress on the immigration debate at all.

Since Trump announced in September that his administration would sunset DACA, fully ending the program on March 5, several proposals giving legal protections to the 690,000 undocumented immigrants in the program have cropped up — none of which have been endorsed or supported by GOP leadership.

Republican leaders, who were previously preoccupied with an Obamacare repeal effort and then a tax reform bill, instead spent months asking the White House for more clarity on Trump’s vision for a DACA deal. Despite knowing an immigration bill will need bipartisan support to become law, Ryan’s only commitments on immigration have been to conservative immigration hardliners.

During the House’s last government spending fight three weeks ago, Ryan promised the House Freedom Caucus, a group of 40 ultraconservative lawmakers, that Republican leadership would whip votes for a conservative, partisan immigration bill. He also made assurances that he wouldn’t bring up any immigration bill that didn’t have the support of the majority of House Republicans — a promise that will prove increasingly difficult on such a contentious and dividing policy issue.

But it’s not only Ryan who’s given Democrats pause. Immigration policy has a fraught history in the House: Former Republican Speaker John Boehner refused to bring up the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration bill for a vote in 2013.

It’s a fresh memory for Democrats, who now want assurances that the 2018 immigration fight won’t fall in the same limbo as in years past.
 

Ang4MohTrump

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...day-to-avoid-another-government-shutdown.html

What Needs to Happen in Congress Today to Avoid Another Government Shutdown
By Ed Kilgore
Share
08-schumer-mcconnell.w710.h473.jpg

The spending deal McConnell and Schumer cut will almost certainly be ratified by both Houses of Congress — but not without some yelling and screaming. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.
Despite all the huzzahs over senators reaching a “budget deal” that will avoid a second government shutdown (while encompassing a fifth temporary “stopgap” spending measure), a number of things need to fall into place before tonight’s expiration of the previous stopgap spending bill.

First of all, the deal needs to be passed by the full Senate. This is a pretty near certainty and will probably happen this afternoon or early evening. This is definitely the easiest part of the process. Yes, a handful of conservative senators may vote against it as a protest against ramped-up spending, and yes, some Senate Democrats may vote no, just as they did last month when a sufficient number of their colleagues chose to throw in what they thought to be a weak hand and end the previous shutdown. But between Schumer’s endorsement of the deal and Trump’s signal that he’ll sign it if it reaches his desk, it’s clear that the 60 votes needed for it will be there. Republicans are happy with the big defense-spending boost in the deal, and Democrats are happy with a corresponding nondefense-spending boost, plus some specific money for community health centers and a generous allocation for disaster recovery. Senators from both parties are quietly pleased at getting a debt-limit suspension out of the way as well.

Next, the hard part: getting the Senate bill through the House by midnight. Part of the plan is to leave the House, where there will be much more vocal opposition to the deal, as little time as possible between the moment it passes the Senate and the midnight deadline (which could, of course, be extended for a day or two if something goes wrong and the government is about to shut down). It’s likely that the Senate deal would not have been announced without assurances from Paul Ryan that he’d have the votes to win House passage. But the math remains a bit tricky.

Having spent weeks demanding a defense-budget boost unlinked from any nondefense increase (or indeed, matched with domestic-spending cuts) significant defections are inevitable from the House Freedom Caucus. The addition of the debt-limit suspension, which many Freedom Caucus members oppose as a matter of principle, made some conservative opposition even more likely. And the noise they are making is feeding media talk of a “conservative revolt” against the deal:

“I’m not only a ‘no.’ I’m a ‘hell no,’” quipped Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), one of many members of the Tea Party-aligned Freedom Caucus who left a closed-door meeting of Republicans saying they would vote against the deal.



It’s a “Christmas tree on steroids,” lamented one of the Freedom Caucus leaders, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.).



“This spending proposal is disgusting and reckless — the biggest spending increase since 2009,” conservative Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted after the meeting. “I urge every American to speak out against this fiscal insanity.”

All of this hyperventilating, however, obscures the fact that House GOP defections beyond the ranks of the 36-member HFC will be rare.

Not only will there be opposition from the right in the House — many Dems will likely fight the bill. Similarly, many House Democrats are vowing to oppose the deal unless Paul Ryan agrees to a vote in the very near future on Dreamer protections. That, indeed, was the ultimate point of Nancy Pelosi’s remarkable eight-hour speech on the House floor yesterday. But Pelosi also made it clear that she would not be exercising party discipline on Democrats to keep them from giving Ryan the votes he needs to offset any conservative losses. So that is almost certainly what will happen.

And even if it passes, the road ahead looks bumpy … While the odds seem good for getting the new deal implemented and keeping the government open, this hardly clears the decks of pressing and divisive issues in Congress. Technically, the deal only covers spending through March 23. The broad agreement over defense and nondefense spending levels will have to be implemented via actual appropriations bills that will be rolled into an omnibus measure before that final, final deadline. The decision to exclude immigration items from the deal, moreover, means both Houses will likely be consumed with fractious debates over Dreamers, border and interior enforcement, and proposed legal immigration restrictions, probably beginning next week. This Congress may need an impending government shutdown to get basic governing decisions done. But it can loudly debate important and unimportant topics alike with no prospect of resolution.
 

Ang4MohTrump

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/us/politics/congress-budget-deal-vote.html


Government Shutdown Looms as Rand Paul Protests Budget Deal
By THOMAS KAPLANFEB. 8, 2018

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • More
  • Save

Photo
merlin_133466760_09c3c776-aa14-44ad-9a10-6a8a632b560b-master768.jpg


Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky arriving for the planned budget vote on Thursday. Credit Al Drago for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The federal government on Thursday night slid toward at least a brief shutdown as a single Republican senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, held up a vote on a far-reaching budget deal that would stave it off.

Angered at the huge spending increases at the center of the deal, Mr. Paul delayed the vote for hours with a demand to vote on an amendment.

“The reason I’m here tonight is to put people on the spot,” Mr. Paul said. “I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, ‘How come you were against President Obama’s deficits and then how come you’re for Republican deficits?’”

He showed no sign of relenting, delivering a floor speech in which he bemoaned what he saw as out-of-control government spending.

“I think the country’s worth a debate until 3 in the morning, frankly,” he said.

Before Mr. Paul waged his assault on the budget deal, trouble was already brewing in the House, where angry opposition from the Republicans’ most ardent conservative members, coupled with Democratic dissenters dismayed that the deal did nothing for young undocumented immigrants, was creating fresh tension as the clock ticked toward midnight.

Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Recent Comments
Matt Carnicelli

19 minutes ago
We don't have a significant spending problem (except perhaps with the military). We have a significant revenue problem, thanks to the...

Howard
51 minutes ago
After over a trillion and a half added to the deficit by the GOP tax so-called "reform," NOW the Republicans are worried about a relatively...

Andrew
1 hour ago
Only one Republican who disagreed with Obama’s spending and deficit to get us out of a near depression now disagree with the GOP plans that...

  • See All Comments
  • Write a comment
ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, told a closed-door meeting of House Democrats that she would oppose the deal, and said Democrats would have leverage if they held together to demand a debate on immigration legislation. But she suggested she would not stand in the way of lawmakers who wanted to vote their conscience.

The struggle to push the bill through the House highlighted the divisions within the Democratic caucus over how hard to push on the issue of immigration as Congress prepares to turn its focus to that politically volatile subject.

Photo
09dc-cong-master675.jpg


Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin expressed confidence on Thursday morning that the bill would pass the House. Credit Al Drago for The New York Times
The text of the deal, stretching more than 600 pages, was released late Wednesday night, revealing provisions large and small that would go far beyond the basic budget numbers. The accord would raise strict spending caps on domestic and military spending in this fiscal year and the next one by about $300 billion in total. It would also lift the federal debt limit until March 2019 and includes almost $90 billion in disaster relief in response to last year’s hurricanes and wildfires.

Critically, it would also keep the government funded for another six weeks, giving lawmakers time to put together a long-term spending bill that would stretch through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The previous temporary funding measure was set to expire at midnight on Thursday.

The deal had been expected to sail through the Senate, and the House had planned to vote on it later Thursday, until Mr. Paul took his stand.

The White House Office of Management and Budget instructed federal agencies to prepare for a possible lapse in funding, a spokeswoman said Thursday night. The shutdown would be the second of the year, coming after a three-day closure last month when the vast majority of Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Mr. Paul, blocked a bill that would have kept the government open.

This time around, Senate leaders from both parties nudged Mr. Paul to stop holding up the vote.

“It’s his right, of course, to vote against the bill, but I would argue that it’s time to vote,” Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader.

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, echoed the sentiment. “We’re in risky territory here,” Mr. Schumer warned.

Among the Democratic ranks in the House, the objections were also strenuous, but for reasons very different from Mr. Paul’s.

With the monthslong budget impasse appearing to be on the cusp of a resolution, lawmakers were girding for a fight over the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children, known as Dreamers, as well as President Trump’s plan to build a wall along the border with Mexico and other possible immigration policy changes.


Graphic
Budget Deficits Would Balloon Under the Bipartisan Spending Deal
The two-year budget agreement reached by Senate leaders would contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to federal deficits.


OPEN Graphic

The uncertain outlook for immigration legislation, and the disagreements on the best strategy to move forward, was starkly apparent as Ms. Pelosi commanded the House floor for more than eight hours on Wednesday in an effort to help the young immigrants. She said she would oppose the budget deal unless Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin offered a commitment to hold a vote on legislation in the House that would address the fate of the Dreamers.

On Thursday, Ms. Pelosi herself displayed the conflicting pressures on Democrats. She simultaneously hailed the budget deal while proclaiming she would vote against it. In a letter to colleagues, she explained her opposition to the deal, but also nodded to its virtues and held back from pressuring other Democrats to vote against it.

“I’m pleased with the product,” she told reporters. “I’m not pleased with the process.”

Mr. Ryan, for his part, stressed his desire to address the fate of the young immigrants. But he did not offer the kind of open-ended commitment that might assuage Ms. Pelosi. Instead, he signaled that whatever bill the House considers would be one that Mr. Trump supports.

Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.


“To anyone who doubts my intention to solve this problem and bring up a DACA and immigration reform bill, do not,” he told reporters. “We will bring a solution to the floor, one that the president will sign.”

The fate of the Dreamers has been in question since Mr. Trump moved in September to end the Obama-era program that shields them from deportation, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The president gave Congress six months to come up with a solution to resolve their fate.

In recent months, Democrats have tried to make use of the leverage they have in fiscal negotiations, and the issue of immigration played a central role in last month’s shutdown. But Democrats have struggled to determine how hard they should push.

In last month’s closure, most Senate Democrats voted to block a bill that would have kept the government open, only to retreat a few days later and agree to end the closure after Mr. McConnell promised a Senate debate on immigration.

This time, House Democrats were clearly split in their calculations about the best way to exert influence over immigration.

Photo
merlin_133460715_752d1200-5aed-4433-be76-61989ab3c2be-master675.jpg


Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said she would oppose the budget deal unless Mr. Ryan offered a commitment to hold a vote on legislation in the House that would address the fate of young undocumented immigrants known as the Dreamers. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times
Representative Luis V. Gutiérrez, Democrat of Illinois, demanded that Ms. Pelosi use her muscle to “stop the Democrats from folding.”

“Anyone who votes for the Senate budget deal is colluding with this president and this administration to deport Dreamers,” he said. “It is as simple as that.”

Democrats also ran the risk of angering liberal activists who want to see them take a stand. Ben Wikler, the Washington director for MoveOn.org, said House Democrats would be making a strategic mistake by voting for the budget deal.

“If you’re looking at a boulder and you have a choice between a lever or your bare hands, you should use the lever,” he said.

But Democrats secured important victories in the budget pact, obtaining big increases in funding for domestic programs. Voting against those wins to take a stand on DACA — and possibly shutting down the government — carried its own political risks.

Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, noted that the budget deal “meets nearly every one of our priorities.”

“If Democrats cannot support this kind of compromise, Congress will never function,” he said.

The spotlight was on House Democrats in part because it became apparent that Republican leaders most likely lacked the votes to push the budget deal through the House with only votes from their own party.

A sizable number of House Republicans are rebelling against the deal because of its huge increase in spending. The conservative House Freedom Caucus, which has roughly three dozen members, formally opposed the deal.

“It was pretty much a smorgasbord of spending and policy that got added to this,” said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the Freedom Caucus. “Normally, people who eat at smorgasbords all the time are not the healthiest.”

Follow Thomas Kaplan on Twitter: @thomaskaplan.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.

Continue reading the main story
 
Top