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

[superchuck500]

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.

How will the federal courts function if the shutdown continues? | Constitution Center

This week, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said it could sustain its current operations until January 31 if the current partial federal government shutdown continues. But what happens to the federal judiciary if that deadline passes?

constitutioncenter.org

 

[fooferdoggie]

At this point, McCarthy might just want to pull a John Boehner and quit. Only problem... no other Republican wants the job.

your wrong Marjorie trailer grease would love the job.

 

[superchuck500]

your wrong Marjorie trailer grease would love the job.

She could never get it. It's a dumpster fire now and McCarthy at least has some sense of how the job is supposed to operate. Many of the Main Street Republicans are getting nervous that this is going to harm them, and they're right. She would take it to another stratosphere of damage and they know it.

I think there's a significant chance that a handful of Republicans will join the Democrats on a clean CR and just undercut the whole freedom caucus and their bullshirt. The question for McCarthy is whether he lets that come to vote. If he does, Gaetz and crew will probably move for his vacancy. Will Democrats join it? I don't know.

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

Jeffries is pretty good at this stuff:

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Looks like it'll take the Senate to rescue things...

Schumer in talks with McConnell as shutdown fears grow: 'We may now have to go first' | CNN Politics

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN that his chamber might have to take matters in its own hands and push through a must-pass bill to fund the government amid deep divisions in the House and a looming shutdown by next weekend.

www.cnn.com

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Whatever...the GOP Extremist will shutdown the government unless the DoJ investigations against trump get defunded. End of Story.

Edit: I'd like to know if Mr. Amash has EVER display such disdain for the Republican attempts across this country to subvert the voters will. In particular, their ACTIONS in Texas where school boards have been taken over and their turning a blind eye to corruption. How about Wisconsin, where they are going to impeach a newly elected SC Judge because they don't like her. Then there's Alabama, the GOP there are simply ignoring SCoTUS' ruling because it did not favor them. Screw Amash and his fake outrage that is built on an outright LIE.

 

[superchuck500]

What a whiney bunch of propaganda that is. Congress could pass a law tomorrow that ends Ukraine funding. Congress could revoke funding rules that give the Pentagon that authority. That’s what representative government through the legislative process means. That’s how it works.

But that’s not what this is. This is a cadre of obstructionists refusing to participate in the annual appropriations process - and thinking that somehow instantly freezes the Pentagon transfers and US Ukraine policy.

Of course that’s completely not how it works. There are different ways funding is programmed and how long and under what discretion it may be used - it’s not all annual appropriations. The statement that Ukraine funding will continue means that they continue to have funds that are legally available for such use, based on appropriations and funding use (programming) laws. A great deal of the federal government goes on during shutdown based on those rules and funding sources - everybody with any sense knows that.

They didn’t change those laws. They didn’t pass a law that freezes Ukraine funding. They haven’t done anything with any authority yet. And merely shutting down annual appropriations for a few days or weeks doesn’t do anything other than pause on new fiscal year 2024 funds. And they’re nothing but some minority number of members of the House (!)

But this is somehow evidence that the US is a no longer a representative government but an oligarchy? It’s a total misrepresentation of what’s actually happening that I don’t think is idiocy, I think it’s total propaganda intended to entice people who don’t understand how this process actually works to believe that somehow a crime against democracy is happening.

They don’t get to do that. If they want to stake a claim on representative government, pass a forking law.

 

[SaintForLife]

What a whiney bunch of propaganda that is. Congress could pass a law tomorrow that ends Ukraine funding. Congress could revoke funding rules that give the Pentagon that authority. That’s what representative government through the legislative process means. That’s how it works.

But that’s not what this is. This is a cadre of obstructionists refusing to participate in the annual appropriations process - and thinking that somehow instantly freezes the Pentagon transfers and US Ukraine policy.

Of course that’s completely not how it works. There are different ways funding is programmed and how long and under what discretion it may be used - it’s not all annual appropriations. The statement that Ukraine funding will continue means that they continue to have funds that are legally available for such use, based on appropriations and funding use (programming) laws. A great deal of the federal government goes on during shutdown based on those rules and funding sources - everybody with any sense knows that.

They didn’t change those laws. They didn’t pass a law that freezes Ukraine funding. They haven’t done anything with any authority yet. And merely shutting down annual appropriations for a few days or weeks doesn’t do anything other than pause on new fiscal year 2024 funds. And they’re nothing but some minority number of members of the House (!)

But this is somehow evidence that the US is a no longer a representative government but an oligarchy? It’s a total misrepresentation of what’s actually happening that I don’t think is idiocy, I think it’s total propaganda intended to entice people who don’t understand how this process actually works to believe that somehow a crime against democracy is happening.

They don’t get to do that. If they want to stake a claim on representative government, pass a forking law.

The annual appropriations process is a crock of shirt. Here's an explanation of how it works. I'm eager to hear your defense this process.



1.The law firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, & Jeffries (“The Firm”) has learned that members of Congress (and voters) don’t like “omnibus” spending bills—that is, legislative proposals that fund all of the functions of the federal government in a single, consolidated bill.

2.This presents a challenge for The Firm, which has for years used omnibus spending bills to manipulate the legislative process. Before we address The Firm’s latest challenge and how it’s responding, let’s first review a few of the basic dynamics at play here.

3. An omnibus spending bill is typically written by The Firm in secret, with assistance from a few “appropriators” (members of the House and Senate spending or “appropriations” committees), hand-picked by The Firm.

4.Once written, an omnibus will first be seen by the public—and even by nearly every member of Congress—only days or hours before a scheduled shutdown.

5. The timing and sequence of a typical omnibus, carefully orchestrated by The Firm, all but ensures that it will pass without substantive changes once it becomes public, and that very few elected, federal lawmakers will have meaningful input in this highly secretive process.

6. At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy.

7. Sometimes that appearance is enhanced by The Firm deciding to let members vote on a small handful of amendments, but The Firm persuades enough members into opposing amendments that make substantial changes to the original, sacred text drafted by The Firm.

8. What’s stunning here is that loyalties within The Firm seem to run deeper than those within each party. In light of that phenomenon, some observers have described the force uniting support for The Firm’s omnibus bills as “the Uniparty.” While members of both parties are adversely affected by The Firm’s manipulative tactics, there is far more resentment toward The Firm among Republicans, who see two constants in The Firm’s impact: (1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats. While exceptions can occasionally be found, Republican appropriators are notorious for wanting to spend—far more than they want to advance Republican policy priorities, deeply endearing them to The Firm.

9. Sure, all members of Congress get to vote on the bill’s ultimate passage. But passage is all but assured. The Firm tells members that they MUST pass it—even though they haven’t seen it, read it, or had time to debate or amend it—because if they don’t, there will be a government shutdown.

10. The Firm also makes clear that members voting against the omnibus will be blamed—by The Firm itself—for the shutdown and its ugly consequences.

11. Thus, although voters in every state elect people to Congress to represent them in all federal legislative endeavors, The Firm can (and often does) render their individual involvement in the spending process far less meaningful than it should be.

12. This sort of thing makes The Firm far more powerful, with more power flowing to The Firm every time this cycle is completed. It’s great for The Firm and the lobbyists and special interests able to capture The Firm’s attention (through home-state connections, political donations, or otherwise).

13. But it’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt.

14. In a sense, the problem is not necessarily the omnibus itself. In theory, Congress could pass a comprehensive spending bill in a way that didn’t exclude most of its members—and most Americans—from the process of drafting, debating, amending, and passing that bill.

15. Thus, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the omnibus itself; the true evil lies in the process by which the omnibus is secretly drafted, hastily debated, and then passed under extortion from The Firm.

16. Many Americans have, over time, developed a basic understanding of omnibus spending bills—at least enough to be suspicious of them. Having heard enough complaints from their constituents, many members of Congress have understandably begun expressing reluctance toward any omnibus.

17. The Firm has become aware of that growing reluctance, which is a serious threat to The Firm, given how well the omnibus has served The Firm as it perpetually tries to make itself more powerful at the expense of the American people.

18. Clearly alarmed by that threat, some members of The Firm have started to say things like “we will not support omnibus.”

19. By saying that, they make themselves sound heroic, responsive to voters and rank-and-file members, and committed to serious reform of the spending process.

20. That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus.

21. Those leery of The Firm’s manipulation tactics understand that (a) the absence of a single omnibus bill, and the use of two or more “minibus” bills instead of a single omnibus, doesn’t mean the process will be fair or materially different than that associated with an omnibus, and (b) it’s very likely that Congress will find itself stuck with a single omnibus, in spite of The Firm’s recent insistence to the contrary.

22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach is more likely to protect Republican priorities.

23. Congress is supposed to pass twelve spending bills each year, each associated with different functions of the federal government. So far this year, the House has passed only one spending bill—the one known by the abbreviation “MilConVA,” which contains funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration.

24.This week, the Senate moved to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA appropriations bill.

25. Not content to let the Senate deal with only one spending bill at a time, The Firm wanted to create a minibus out of the MilConVA bill by adding two additional bills drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee—specifically those containing funding for (1) agriculture, and (2) transportation, housing, and urban development.

26. Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate found this move alarming, as it would strengthen The Firm at the expense of Republican priorities, and contribute to the eventual likelihood of an end-of-year omnibus geared primarily toward advancing Democratic priorities.

27. The Firm faced a hurdle: combining the three bills together in the Senate would require the consent of every senator.

28. While many Senate Republicans harbored these concerns, most identified conditions that, if satisfied, would persuade them to consent. Most of the conditions involved some combination of (1) technical and procedural assurances pertaining to how the combined bill would be considered, and (2) an agreement to vote on specific proposed amendments advancing Republican priorities.

29. One Republican senator in particular, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, remained concerned that any agreement would benefit The Firm and far more than it would advance Republican priorities. On that basis, he objected.

30. The Firm wasn’t happy. Making its displeasure known, The Firm and its cheerleaders tried to blame @RonJohnsonWI for the Senate’s inability to restore what’s known as “regular order,” that is, the process by which each of the twelve appropriations bills is supposed to advance independently, and in a way that honors each member’s procedural rights by allowing an “open amendment process.”
@RonJohnsonWI

31. Here’s the irony: what The Firm was proposing was NOT “regular order.” Far from it, it was a slightly different flavor of The Firm’s tried-and-true manipulation formula.

32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an unending series of omnibus (or omnibus-like) bills that The Firm can ram through both chambers with minimal interference from rank-and-file members.

 

[MT15]

This is more propaganda, SFL. There are all sorts of clues in the style of writing. It’s presenting a conspiracy theory type of explanation for the way Congress works, in a very inflammatory writing style.

There could be a discussion, but this conspiratorial style just turns me off. This is the “uniparty” conspiracy theory-which is swirling around the far right, and just ignores most of our history to plant baseless doubts about our system of government.

Reading point 3 alone should give you a clue that we aren’t dealing with any sort of honest assessment here. These people just want chaos - they don’t care about making anything better for people. IMO.

 

[superchuck500]

The annual appropriations process is a crock of shirt. Here's an explanation of how it works. I'm eager to hear your defense this process.



1.The law firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, & Jeffries (“The Firm”) has learned that members of Congress (and voters) don’t like “omnibus” spending bills—that is, legislative proposals that fund all of the functions of the federal government in a single, consolidated bill.

2.This presents a challenge for The Firm, which has for years used omnibus spending bills to manipulate the legislative process. Before we address The Firm’s latest challenge and how it’s responding, let’s first review a few of the basic dynamics at play here.

3. An omnibus spending bill is typically written by The Firm in secret, with assistance from a few “appropriators” (members of the House and Senate spending or “appropriations” committees), hand-picked by The Firm.

4.Once written, an omnibus will first be seen by the public—and even by nearly every member of Congress—only days or hours before a scheduled shutdown.

5. The timing and sequence of a typical omnibus, carefully orchestrated by The Firm, all but ensures that it will pass without substantive changes once it becomes public, and that very few elected, federal lawmakers will have meaningful input in this highly secretive process.

6. At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy.

7. Sometimes that appearance is enhanced by The Firm deciding to let members vote on a small handful of amendments, but The Firm persuades enough members into opposing amendments that make substantial changes to the original, sacred text drafted by The Firm.

8. What’s stunning here is that loyalties within The Firm seem to run deeper than those within each party. In light of that phenomenon, some observers have described the force uniting support for The Firm’s omnibus bills as “the Uniparty.” While members of both parties are adversely affected by The Firm’s manipulative tactics, there is far more resentment toward The Firm among Republicans, who see two constants in The Firm’s impact: (1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats. While exceptions can occasionally be found, Republican appropriators are notorious for wanting to spend—far more than they want to advance Republican policy priorities, deeply endearing them to The Firm.

9. Sure, all members of Congress get to vote on the bill’s ultimate passage. But passage is all but assured. The Firm tells members that they MUST pass it—even though they haven’t seen it, read it, or had time to debate or amend it—because if they don’t, there will be a government shutdown.

10. The Firm also makes clear that members voting against the omnibus will be blamed—by The Firm itself—for the shutdown and its ugly consequences.

11. Thus, although voters in every state elect people to Congress to represent them in all federal legislative endeavors, The Firm can (and often does) render their individual involvement in the spending process far less meaningful than it should be.

12. This sort of thing makes The Firm far more powerful, with more power flowing to The Firm every time this cycle is completed. It’s great for The Firm and the lobbyists and special interests able to capture The Firm’s attention (through home-state connections, political donations, or otherwise).

13. But it’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt.

14. In a sense, the problem is not necessarily the omnibus itself. In theory, Congress could pass a comprehensive spending bill in a way that didn’t exclude most of its members—and most Americans—from the process of drafting, debating, amending, and passing that bill.

15. Thus, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the omnibus itself; the true evil lies in the process by which the omnibus is secretly drafted, hastily debated, and then passed under extortion from The Firm.

16. Many Americans have, over time, developed a basic understanding of omnibus spending bills—at least enough to be suspicious of them. Having heard enough complaints from their constituents, many members of Congress have understandably begun expressing reluctance toward any omnibus.

17. The Firm has become aware of that growing reluctance, which is a serious threat to The Firm, given how well the omnibus has served The Firm as it perpetually tries to make itself more powerful at the expense of the American people.

18. Clearly alarmed by that threat, some members of The Firm have started to say things like “we will not support omnibus.”

19. By saying that, they make themselves sound heroic, responsive to voters and rank-and-file members, and committed to serious reform of the spending process.

20. That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus.

21. Those leery of The Firm’s manipulation tactics understand that (a) the absence of a single omnibus bill, and the use of two or more “minibus” bills instead of a single omnibus, doesn’t mean the process will be fair or materially different than that associated with an omnibus, and (b) it’s very likely that Congress will find itself stuck with a single omnibus, in spite of The Firm’s recent insistence to the contrary.

22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach is more likely to protect Republican priorities.

23. Congress is supposed to pass twelve spending bills each year, each associated with different functions of the federal government. So far this year, the House has passed only one spending bill—the one known by the abbreviation “MilConVA,” which contains funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration.

24.This week, the Senate moved to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA appropriations bill.

25. Not content to let the Senate deal with only one spending bill at a time, The Firm wanted to create a minibus out of the MilConVA bill by adding two additional bills drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee—specifically those containing funding for (1) agriculture, and (2) transportation, housing, and urban development.

26. Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate found this move alarming, as it would strengthen The Firm at the expense of Republican priorities, and contribute to the eventual likelihood of an end-of-year omnibus geared primarily toward advancing Democratic priorities.

27. The Firm faced a hurdle: combining the three bills together in the Senate would require the consent of every senator.

28. While many Senate Republicans harbored these concerns, most identified conditions that, if satisfied, would persuade them to consent. Most of the conditions involved some combination of (1) technical and procedural assurances pertaining to how the combined bill would be considered, and (2) an agreement to vote on specific proposed amendments advancing Republican priorities.

29. One Republican senator in particular, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, remained concerned that any agreement would benefit The Firm and far more than it would advance Republican priorities. On that basis, he objected.

30. The Firm wasn’t happy. Making its displeasure known, The Firm and its cheerleaders tried to blame @RonJohnsonWI for the Senate’s inability to restore what’s known as “regular order,” that is, the process by which each of the twelve appropriations bills is supposed to advance independently, and in a way that honors each member’s procedural rights by allowing an “open amendment process.”
@RonJohnsonWI

31. Here’s the irony: what The Firm was proposing was NOT “regular order.” Far from it, it was a slightly different flavor of The Firm’s tried-and-true manipulation formula.

32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an unending series of omnibus (or omnibus-like) bills that The Firm can ram through both chambers with minimal interference from rank-and-file members.

lol - “the law firm of people that weren’t even in positions of power in the House until this year” are part of the oligarchy conspiracy. This is just more whiney propaganda from people who don’t have enough votes for their agenda so they cry conspiracy. It’s literally every single issue with them now.

Do you know how to avoid last minute spending packages? Pass the 12 appropriations bills in the normal course. The House passed one - in July and the Senate version was voted out of committee and could be voted on at any time.

Why hasn’t the House passed any more spending bills? What have they been doing instead? Oh, that’s right - stupid bullshirt that even many Republicans have criticized as a clown show.

They don’t want do to the hard work of legislation because it takes time and diligence and vote garnering through a process. But that doesn’t get nightly coverage on Fox News and all of the MAGA channels that value performance over lawmaking.

 

[SaintForLife]

lol - “the law firm of people that weren’t even in positions of power in the House until this year” are part of the oligarchy conspiracy. This is just more whiney propaganda from people who don’t have enough votes for their agenda so they cry conspiracy. It’s literally every single issueauthoritarian.

Switch out the names. It's the positions that hold that power.

Do you know how to avoid last minute spending packages? Pass the 12 appropriations bills in the normal course. The House passed one - in July and the Senate version was voted out of committee and could be voted on at any time.

Are you seriously defending the corrupt anti-democratic ominous spending bills? How often are congressman or senators given minutes or an hour to supposedly read a 500 page bill? How often are they blocked from getting votes on ammendments?

Why hasn’t the House passed any more spending bills? What have they been doing instead? Oh, that’s right - stupid bullshirt that even many Republicans have criticized as a clown show.

They don’t want do to the hard work of legislation because it takes time and diligence and vote garnering through a process. But that doesn’t get nightly coverage on Fox News and all of the MAGA channels that value performance over lawmaking.

It's a clown show when every member of a party don't fall in line with exactly what the leader of their party wants? Heaven forbid that the members try to extract any concessions or force a vote on a certain bill.

 

[superchuck500]

Switch out the names. It's the positions that hold that power.


Are you seriously defending the corrupt anti-democratic ominous spending bills? How often are congressman or senators given minutes or an hour to supposedly read a 500 page bill? How often are they blocked from getting votes on ammendments?


It's a clown show when every member of a party don't fall in line with exactly what the leader of their party wants? Heaven forbid that the members try to extract any concessions or force a vote on a certain bill.

They’re totally allowed to do whatever they have in their power - I never said that they can’t. If they want to withhold rule votes, fine. If they want to shut the government down because they don’t have enough votes to get what their demands, fine. That’s the process.
But they have to take the heat and political fall-out for it - but I never said they can’t do that.

What I said was they don’t get to have a few people trying to demand their agenda and then acting like it’s a crime against democracy when the process doesn’t work the way they’re misrepresenting that it does.

 

[SaintForLife]

They’re totally allowed to do whatever they have in their power - I never said that they can’t. If they want to withhold rule votes, fine. If they want to shut the government down because they don’t have enough votes to get what their demands, fine. That’s the process.
But they have to take the heat and political fall-out for it - but I never said they can’t do that.

What I said was they don’t get to have a few people trying to demand their agenda and then acting like it’s a crime against democracy when the process doesn’t work the way they’re misrepresenting that it does.

You claimed it was whiney propaganda when I posted how the omnibus spending bill. Please explain to me how the omnibus spending bill processes are good for our country and for a democracy.

 

[superchuck500]

You claimed it was whiney propaganda when I posted how the omnibus spending bill. Please explain to me how the omnibus spending bill processes are good for our country and for a democracy.

Those bills are part of the legislative process - they don’t get passed and signed into law without that. It’s not some conspiracy. It’s whiney because they don’t have the votes to do what they want so they complain and misrepresent what is happening. And they do have a process to use to eliminate most of the process leverage they’re complaining about - but they don’t use it because they’re too busy with their performative culture war to do real lawmaking.

I don’t have the time nor the interest to respond to each component of something you posted that some other propagandist wrote. It’s a misrepresentation of what actually happens.

 

[SaintForLife]

Those bills are part of the legislative process - they don’t get passed and signed into law without that. It’s not some conspiracy. It’s whiney because they don’t have the votes to do what they want so they complain and misrepresent what is happening. And they do have a process to use to eliminate most of the process leverage they’re complaining about - but they don’t use it because they’re too busy with their performative culture war to do real lawmaking.

I don’t have the time nor the interest to respond to each component of something you posted that some other propagandist wrote. It’s a misrepresentation of what actually happens.

You could have easily commented, even briefly, on the omnibus bill and if the way they pass bills is good for the country in the time you typed those two paragraphs especially after your claim of propaganda.

I would like to hear an explanation from whoever wants to explain how writing bills in near secrecy, giving congress 30 minutes to read a 500 page bill before voting on it, not allowing votes for an ammendment is good for the country.

 

[superchuck500]

You could have easily commented, even briefly, on the omnibus bill and if the way they pass bills is good for the country in the time you typed those two paragraphs especially after your claim of propaganda.

I would like to hear an explanation from whoever wants to explain how writing bills in near secrecy, giving congress 30 minutes to read a 500 page bill before voting on it, not allowing votes for an ammendment is good for the country.

That doesn’t happen