Looming budget battle: Will the GOP force federal shutdown (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    6,039
    Reaction score
    15,278
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Annual federal appropriations will lapse on September 30, 2023 - now less than a month away. After the debt-ceiling fight, many anticipated that the FY 2024 funding battle could see a federal government shutdown of some length as Republicans push for more budget cuts . . . and that was before Special Counsel Jack Smith's office filed two separate criminal prosecutions of Donald Trump. Desperate to hit back in any way they can, the MAGAs in Congress have already said they will attempt to de-fund the prosecution. Of course, the only way they could even attempt to do that would be to force a shutdown of the entire federal government, or at least the civilian executive agencies presuming a bill funding DOD could get through.

    It's hard to imagine that they won't try this, the questions are when will they try it and how much of the GOP goes along with the MAGAs (i.e. Freedom Caucus), particularly in the Senate where McConnell has already indicated no interest in such a gambit . . . though McConnell's health may eventually come into play. Would, for example, the Republicans agree to a continuing resolution to fund the government for several months to allow the time to get closer to the Trump federal trial dates before actually attempting a shutdown? (March 4 in DC and May 20 in Florida).

    One factor in play is that federal funding rules allow the Article III courts (which include the federal district and appellate courts) to continue operation in a shutdown and they also allow for federal agencies to continue with "excepted" activities that include, generally, federal criminal prosecutions. (See article below). This allowance, however, is not perpetual, it is funded by other sources that do eventually dry up - so eventually they would shut down. Hypothetically, but such a lengthy shutdown would be terribly detrimental to the economy and have substantial political damage for the party perceived to have caused it . . . in this case that wouldn't be much of a debate.

    For those reasons, I think the smarter GOP leaders, particularly in the Senate, will recognized that trying to use the budget as a tool to harm the Trump prosecutions is a fool's game: it's almost certain not to achieve that goal and it's to bring about substantial harm. But the MAGAs aren't as smart and given their wild allegiance to Trump, we can expect some sort of effort. At minimum it gives them an ability to say to their MAGA constituents that they tried to shutdown the prosecutions but were sold out by the RINOs in the Senate.

    Going to be an interesting showdown. I don't think I can recall a shutdown battle where actually shutting the government down so that it couldn't function was the objective rather than a tool for coercion. Crazy.



     
    4 days left

    The mechanics of this have gotten quite a bit blurry based on how the CRs were broken down by spending bill rather than governmentwide. Some of agencies are funded through March 1, some through March 8.

    I read that one of the fights from Republicans is $3 million (yes, million not billion) of earmarks that include two community centers and a senior living center . . . because they are LGBT friendly. smh
     
    Looks for now like the GOP will agree on funding and avoid what would have been a deeply cynical shutdown. Or at least enough of them will and along with democrats the funding will pass.

    What we need is for five or six GOP reps to realize they can get any kind of pork-barrel earmarks they want if they agree to vote yes on a bill the Democrats support.
    "Aid for Ukraine and federal funding for two years? Sure, as long as I get $200 million for a plasma-fired moonshine still in Hardscrabble WV."
     
    What we need is for five or six GOP reps to realize they can get any kind of pork-barrel earmarks they want if they agree to vote yes on a bill the Democrats support.
    "Aid for Ukraine and federal funding for two years? Sure, as long as I get $200 million for a plasma-fired moonshine still in Hardscrabble WV."
    But can they get an amp that goes to 11?
     
    It’s that time again. The last act of Congress funding the federal government expires on September 30. So, unless Congress passes new funding legislation by then, much of the government will shut down.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), egged on by the House Freedom Caucus and by former President Donald Trump, reportedly wants to use this deadline to force through legislation that would make it harder to register to vote in all 50 states.

    Johnson plans to pair a bill funding the government for six months with a Republican bill called the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” or “SAVE Act,” that would require new voters to submit “documentary proof of United States citizenship,” such as a passport or a birth certificate, in order to register to vote.

    There is no evidence that noncitizens vote in US federal elections in any meaningful numbers, and states typically have safeguards in place to prevent them from doing so. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, for example, claims to have identified 1,634 “potential noncitizens” who attempted to register during a 15-year period. But these possible noncitizens were caught by election officials and were never registered. In 2020, nearly 5 million Georgians voted in the presidential election.

    More broadly, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, “illegal registration and voting attempts by noncitizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate state authorities, and there is no evidence that attempts at voting by noncitizens have been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome.”

    While noncitizen voting — which is, of course, illegal — has never been proven to have affected an election, there is evidence that the SAVE Act could have an impact on elections. That much is clear from Arizona, which already has a SAVE Act-like regime. Data from Arizona suggests the state’s law has made it slightly harder for people of color, a group that skews Democratic, to vote. And at least one analysis of Arizona voter data suggests that the SAVE Act could suppress voter registration among another group that tends to vote for Democrats: college students. So the bill could make it slightly more difficult for Democrats to win elections.

    That said, the SAVE Act law does have a vague provision allowing voters who “cannot provide” the required documentation to submit other evidence that they are a citizen, and it provides that state or local officials “shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship.”

    It’s unclear what, exactly, that means..............

     
    It’s that time again. The last act of Congress funding the federal government expires on September 30. So, unless Congress passes new funding legislation by then, much of the government will shut down.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), egged on by the House Freedom Caucus and by former President Donald Trump, reportedly wants to use this deadline to force through legislation that would make it harder to register to vote in all 50 states.

    Johnson plans to pair a bill funding the government for six months with a Republican bill called the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” or “SAVE Act,” that would require new voters to submit “documentary proof of United States citizenship,” such as a passport or a birth certificate, in order to register to vote.

    There is no evidence that noncitizens vote in US federal elections in any meaningful numbers, and states typically have safeguards in place to prevent them from doing so. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, for example, claims to have identified 1,634 “potential noncitizens” who attempted to register during a 15-year period. But these possible noncitizens were caught by election officials and were never registered. In 2020, nearly 5 million Georgians voted in the presidential election.

    More broadly, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, “illegal registration and voting attempts by noncitizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate state authorities, and there is no evidence that attempts at voting by noncitizens have been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome.”

    While noncitizen voting — which is, of course, illegal — has never been proven to have affected an election, there is evidence that the SAVE Act could have an impact on elections. That much is clear from Arizona, which already has a SAVE Act-like regime. Data from Arizona suggests the state’s law has made it slightly harder for people of color, a group that skews Democratic, to vote. And at least one analysis of Arizona voter data suggests that the SAVE Act could suppress voter registration among another group that tends to vote for Democrats: college students. So the bill could make it slightly more difficult for Democrats to win elections.

    That said, the SAVE Act law does have a vague provision allowing voters who “cannot provide” the required documentation to submit other evidence that they are a citizen, and it provides that state or local officials “shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship.”

    It’s unclear what, exactly, that means..............


    Spoiler alert - Johnson is gonna tool all over the SAVE act until literally the last second and then they’re gonna cave on a clean CR through March.
     
    It’s that time again. The last act of Congress funding the federal government expires on September 30. So, unless Congress passes new funding legislation by then, much of the government will shut down.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), egged on by the House Freedom Caucus and by former President Donald Trump, reportedly wants to use this deadline to force through legislation that would make it harder to register to vote in all 50 states.

    Johnson plans to pair a bill funding the government for six months with a Republican bill called the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” or “SAVE Act,” that would require new voters to submit “documentary proof of United States citizenship,” such as a passport or a birth certificate, in order to register to vote.

    There is no evidence that noncitizens vote in US federal elections in any meaningful numbers, and states typically have safeguards in place to prevent them from doing so. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, for example, claims to have identified 1,634 “potential noncitizens” who attempted to register during a 15-year period. But these possible noncitizens were caught by election officials and were never registered. In 2020, nearly 5 million Georgians voted in the presidential election.

    More broadly, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, “illegal registration and voting attempts by noncitizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate state authorities, and there is no evidence that attempts at voting by noncitizens have been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome.”

    While noncitizen voting — which is, of course, illegal — has never been proven to have affected an election, there is evidence that the SAVE Act could have an impact on elections. That much is clear from Arizona, which already has a SAVE Act-like regime. Data from Arizona suggests the state’s law has made it slightly harder for people of color, a group that skews Democratic, to vote. And at least one analysis of Arizona voter data suggests that the SAVE Act could suppress voter registration among another group that tends to vote for Democrats: college students. So the bill could make it slightly more difficult for Democrats to win elections.

    That said, the SAVE Act law does have a vague provision allowing voters who “cannot provide” the required documentation to submit other evidence that they are a citizen, and it provides that state or local officials “shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship.”

    It’s unclear what, exactly, that means..............

    I don’t have a problem with requiring IDs to register. I would expect that requirement to already be in place. I know it is pitched by Republicans as a means to prevent voter fraud which is practically non-existent, but why wouldn’t we expect IDs to register? Are there registrars anywhere that don’t require IDs?
     
    I don’t have a problem with requiring IDs to register. I would expect that requirement to already be in place. I know it is pitched by Republicans as a means to prevent voter fraud which is practically non-existent, but why wouldn’t we expect IDs to register? Are there registrars anywhere that don’t require IDs?
    I am ok with it if it is provided as a service for free and accessible. In my town, the only way to get to a DMV is by car. If voter registration booths with places that can certify ID are available, than that is fine.
     
    I am ok with it if it is provided as a service for free and accessible. In my town, the only way to get to a DMV is by car. If voter registration booths with places that can certify ID are available, than that is fine.

    I think it's required to have a free way to get an ID. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
     
    I don’t have a problem with requiring IDs to register. I would expect that requirement to already be in place. I know it is pitched by Republicans as a means to prevent voter fraud which is practically non-existent, but why wouldn’t we expect IDs to register? Are there registrars anywhere that don’t require IDs?

    I think the bigger thing is that we don't need to impose new voting laws on states that may make things difficult for them so close to the election. Especially when there isn't even any indication that non-citizens are registering anywhere to vote.
     
    I am ok with it if it is provided as a service for free and accessible. In my town, the only way to get to a DMV is by car. If voter registration booths with places that can certify ID are available, than that is fine.
    I know Republicans are not being genuine about a fear of voter fraud, but that shouldn't stop us from continuing to improve the process to eliminate the little that there is. I agree that IDs must be free, and I think it is a good compromise to have free voter registration methods available on site or assure that IDs are offered 24/7 the week before the election and vouchers to pay for transportation to and from the registration site. The goal should be to facilitate all legal votes, but I think it is a bad look to simply oppose voter IDs, because that in and of itself makes sense. The details or vagaries of getting those IDs get buried, but are manageable.
     
    I think it's required to have a free way to get an ID. Otherwise it's a poll tax.
    Not in Nebraska. They have a cheaper alternative but there is money required. the biggest challenge is transportation. Elderly people who don’t have a license anymore can’t drive to a DMV to get a new id.
     
    I am ok with it if it is provided as a service for free and accessible. In my town, the only way to get to a DMV is by car. If voter registration booths with places that can certify ID are available, than that is fine.

    "Free & Accessible" needs to be greatly clarified and needs to include 'easily obtainable"

    Otherwise you'll end up with a situation like we had with mail in ballot boxes in some places - wanted to have only one available in the furthest reaches of the county

    It'll be free and accessible, but it'll be "you need to fill out the paperwork in person, paperwork must be filled out in black ink, paperwork is only accepted between the hours of 1pm and 3pm, and only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and every third Wednesday, and accepted only at this one location, and you can only get the address by completing a scavenger hunt"

    But it is "free"
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom