Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/22/civil-servants-not-bargaining.html
…
9 Likes
Yes, yes all good but, Mr. Warner’s district is in Northern Va. an area just across the Potomac from D.C. where a HUGE number of government employees live, eat, and vote. Politicians amirite?
Ps. Warner hasn’t really done much for No. Va.
6 Likes
That spells “STUPIDITCY.” Or maybe “STUPAIDITCY” if you use the “and.”
6 Likes
It’s not great, but keep in mind he’s trolling someone who regularly misspells words like corps, counsel, and smoking.
22 Likes
I’ve got a better one: The government doesn’t get to drop any bombs on anyone, anywhere in the world, while it is " shut down." Nothing encourages bipartisanship like eternal war.
18 Likes
The people in the Pentagon who measure their importance by the size of their budget don’t actually want to buy more ammo for existing systems; you just can’t spend enough money that way. Programs to develop new weapons systems are where you can dump an effectively infinite amount of cash with no defined end condition. (See e.g. the F-35.)
11 Likes
It still costs something to fly a mission to drop bombs, so that should be shut down for the shutdown.
7 Likes
What’s your point?
I mean, the hint is right there in the title …
5 Likes
A bill for continuing appropriations isn’t an appropriations bill.
It’s a nice gesture, but doesn’t seem like it would survive a constitutional challenge. Article 1 Section 9:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law
“Let’s just do the same thing as last year!” doesn’t really cut it here.
2 Likes
In sensibly set up forms of government, if the elected representatives can’t pass a budget (arguably the most important thing government does, except maybe declaring war), then it is clear that the government doesn’t hold the confidence of the electorate and an election is called to try to elect a government that can pass a budget.
The idea that an elected government can just shut down because of political whims seems like a bad idea. Maybe time to rethink things.
14 Likes
Makes sense, but for this to pass congress would need to be more altruistic and less psychopathic. Which of course they aren’t, so don’t hold your breath.
2 Likes
SNAFU?
1 Like
Or instead of this bill, the Senate could just pass bills to fund the government, and let Trump veto them, and then override his veto. Trump isn’t the only scum that holds the blame for this shutdown mess - Mitch and Co are bagmen, too.
9 Likes
What’s the problem here ? Government employees voted for someone who try to protect them, isn’t it what’s suppose to happen in a representative democracy ?
2 Likes
Well… if a government shut down doesn’t hurt the public, you can’t really weaponize it to get your way. In which case, why bother shutting down the government?
3 Likes
It’s quite an overwrought acronym, but it’s definitely appropriate for the situation.
I do think American legislators are generally having a bit too much fun creating acronyms for their bills. This is not the first offender.
5 Likes
Exactly. This whole situation where you can hurt innocent people to weaponize them for political gain creates perverse incentives for unscrupulous politicians like Trump.
Taking that weapon away from them is good for everybody. Force them to negotiate and compromise to reach new agreements, rather than turning politics into a protection racket.
McConnell seems to have given himself the power of veto that’s more powerful than that of the president. He can single-handedly block anything that needs Senate approval, from appointments to bills, simply by refusing to allow a vote. That’s clearly a power he shouldn’t have.
9 Likes
AIUI, that’s a power he only has because the rest of the GOP senators let him have it. They could, I believe, put forth a demand for a new Majority Leader, or more precisely threaten McConnell with that if he doesn’t budge, but they don’t.
5 Likes
Yea, I was kind of wondering about that. Can they appropriate an unlimited amount of money?
1 Like
