Showing posts with label Shutdown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shutdown. Show all posts

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Senate Takes Next Step Toward Shutdown Showdown

After a dramatic 21-plus hours in which Republican Sen. Ted Cruz stood to express his opposition to President Obama's health care programs, the Senate early Wednesday afternoon voted 100-0 to move ahead and take up legislation that would avert a government shutdown next Tuesday.

As expected, the move by the Democratic-led Senate sets up what promises to be another showdown with the Republican-controlled House.

USA Today writes that the unanimous vote:

"Cleared the way to begin debate on a House-passed stopgap spending bill that includes language to defund the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare]. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is expected to strip that provision from the bill and return to the House later this week a clean stopgap measure to keep the government funded through Nov. 15.

"The overwhelming support for the procedural vote made clear that the votes do not exist in Congress to defund the law, but Cruz's filibuster-style speech drew praise from colleagues and opponents of the law."

The Hill sums up what happened this way:

"Senators voted by a margin of 100 to 0 to end debate on a motion to proceed to the House-passed stopgap, which includes language to prioritize debt payments if Congress fails to raise the debt limit this fall. The vote sets the stage for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to offer an amendment to strip the defund-ObamaCare and the debt-prioritization language out of the House measure.

"Republicans said they support advancing the legislation because it would defund the controversial healthcare law."

Now, if things go as expected, the House and Senate will be at odds over what should and should not be included in legislation that would keep the government open past the Sept. 30 end of its fiscal year.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Your Government Shutdown Questions, Answered

If Congress can't come to an agreement to fund the government, there will be a shutdown on Oct. 1.Enlarge image i

If Congress can't come to an agreement to fund the government, there will be a shutdown on Oct. 1.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

There's a showdown underway in Congress.

The Republican-controlled House has voted to keep the government running only if the Affordable Care Act is defunded, and the Democratic-controlled Senate isn't likely to go along with that plan. If the two sides can't resolve their differences by Oct. 1, the U.S. government will shut down.

We asked you what you wanted to know about the potential government shutdown, and journalists from NPR's Washington Desk tracked down the answers:

I'd like to know the definition of "shutdown," and the consequences of such. — Alex Larson

Unless Congress agrees on a continuing resolution to fund government programs by Sept. 30, the federal government will no longer have the authority to spend money, leading to a partial shutdown of the government.

Now, "partial" is the key word here, because some programs and spending will continue — Social Security and Medicare, for instance. They fall under the rubric of mandatory spending, along with food stamps and unemployment insurance. Those are all programs that are more or less on autopilot and do not rely on annual appropriations bills to keep operating. So Grandma or Dad or older baby boomers do not have to worry; those checks will keep on coming.

Other spending that's exempt from a shutdown: active duty military, Border Patrol and air traffic controllers. According to a memo released by the White House Office of Management and Budget, funding will continue for those functions "necessary to the discharge of the President's constitutional duties and powers" (the military part) or if the "suspension of the function would imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property" (air traffic controllers, Border Patrol).

However, civilian Pentagon employees and hundreds of thousands of other federal workers are not so lucky. According to a memo from the Pentagon, "while military personnel would continue in a normal duty status, a large number of our civilian employees would be temporarily furloughed." So would employees in a range of agencies from the IRS to the National Park Service.

So that weekend trip to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park? If the government shuts down, so will the parks.

— Brian Naylor

Does the shutdown mean that Congress won't be paid? — @mocolvin

Members of Congress will get paid in the event of a shutdown. That is because they fall under the category of "essential" personnel. The last time the government faced a serious threat of shuttering, in 2011, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would prevent Congress and the president from receiving paychecks during a shutdown. The House never took up the measure. In January, at the beginning of the new legislative year, Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, both Democrats, introduced their bill again. The full Senate has not taken up the measure.

Whether or not congressional staffers get checks during a shutdown is a little bit harder to discern. The general thinking is that most staffers are considered "nonessential" personnel and therefore won't be paid. Based on what took place during the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns, staffers — along with most other federal employees — got paid retroactively for days missed once the government reopened. It is not clear whether staffers would receive retroactive pay this time around. According to Barry Anderson, who was assistant director for budget at the Office of Management and Budget during the last shutdown, the number of people deemed essential or nonessential can be fluid. "During a short shutdown, you may not need to do certain things. But the longer it goes, more people may be deemed 'essential' over time."

— Brakkton Booker

If there's a shutdown, what's the effect on Obamacare rollout? Do the [people] running the new exchanges get laid off? — @21stProgressive

In general, the Affordable Care Act — whose health exchanges are set to launch Oct. 1, which would be the first day of any government shutdown — would be largely unaffected. That's because most of the law's funding does not come from annual appropriations, which are what is at issue in the current budget standoff.

In the 17 states that are operating their own exchanges, a shutdown will have almost no visible impact. "The D.C. exchange would not be affected at all by a government shutdown," said Richard Sorian, communications director for D.C. Health Link, the exchange for the District of Columbia. "We already have our funding and we're ready to open as scheduled on Oct. 1."

The other 34 states have exchanges that are being run in whole or part by the federal government. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a document in anticipation of a possible shutdown that noted that employees building the health exchanges were not subject to furlough, because their funding came from money already provided under the Affordable Care Act. HHS officials have not yet said that those who will be operating the exchanges are also protected should the government shut down, although it is assumed that will continue to be the case. Congress has refused to provide any new funding for the law since it passed in 2010.

— Julie Rovner

Will I still be able to get a passport? — @quozimodo

Passports and visas will not be issued if a shutdown comes to fruition. During the last shutdown, a daily backlog of 20,000 to 30,000 applications by foreigners for visas went unprocessed. And some 200,000 passport applications did not get processed, according to the Congressional Research Service. Richard Moose, who was undersecretary of state for management during the Clinton administration's shutdown, said the bar was extremely high for getting a passport processed while the government was closed. "It would have to have been somebody who had to travel for medical purposes or someone who could persuade us that they were going abroad on defense business or with one of the intelligence agencies."

If that doesn't apply to you, expect long delays.

— Brakkton Booker


If you want more details about how things worked the last time the government shut down in the 1990s, check out Brian Naylor's post: Not-So-Fond Memories From The Last Government Shutdowns.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Some GOP Leaders Tee Up Cruz For Blame If There's A Shutdown

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is becoming the face of a possible government shutdown over Obamacare which already has many fellow Republicans bashing him for what they view as an ill-conceived gambit.Enlarge image i

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is becoming the face of a possible government shutdown over Obamacare which already has many fellow Republicans bashing him for what they view as an ill-conceived gambit.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Just a week before the federal government could shut down if no agreement is reached to fund it past the end of September, it's anyone's guess whether Democrats and Republicans will avoid plunging over this particular cliff.

More certain, however, is that if a shutdown happens over Obamacare and Republicans wind up taking the heat, many GOP fingers of blame will point squarely at Sen. Ted Cruz.

The Texas Republican will likely become the face of the 2013 shutdown, just as Newt Gingrich became the poster boy of two government shutdowns of the mid-1990s.

What we're seeing, in part, is the lack of loyalty and the distrust that runs in both directions when a group of relatively new members of Congress, with a grassroots political base that scorns the establishment, operates independently of and often at odds with the party's more traditionalist members.

Today, it's the Tea Party movement which helped Cruz get elected. Three decades ago, it was the large post-Watergate class of freshmen Democrats elected in 1974 who drove more senior Democrats crazy with their impertinent demands that party elders be more accountable to them.

There's something else going on as well. As in most workplaces, lawmakers tend to have more respect for colleagues they perceive as work horses than show horses. Cruz is certainly getting a reputation for being more the latter than the former (see David Brooks' comments during a recent PBS Newshour segment.)

Overlaying all that are the very real concerns held by more experienced Republicans that Cruz's defund-Obamacare-or-bust approach, as laid out in his Monday Real Clear Politics op-ed, will do more harm than good for the Republican brand, as in the 1990s.

That's how you get Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, letting it be known that he parts company with Cruz on strategy. And that's despite McConnell needing to watch his right flank as he runs for re-election.

It's also how you get to Arizona Sen. John McCain tweeting links to opinion pieces from an economist who advised his 2008 presidential campaign and a syndicated conservative radio talk show host. Both share McCain's view that Cruz is the leader of a political-party suicide mission.

And it's how you get Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee swiping at Cruz for being smart enough to have two Ivy League degrees but not politically savvy enough to avoid a fight the Texan can't win and that could cost the party plenty.

It's also how you get Karl Rove saying on Fox News saying that Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, didn't win any friends among Senate Republicans by communicating their Obamacare strategy through the media, not in face-to-face meetings. Rove said:

"... You cannot build a congressional majority in either party for any kind of action, unless you're treating your colleagues with some or certain amount of respect and saying, 'Hey, what do you think of my idea?' and instead, they have dictated to their colleagues through the media, and through public statements, and not consulted them about this strategy at all."

All of which suggests that if Cruz's defund Obamacare strategy leads to a shutdown that backfires on Republicans in a big way, the Texas senator will find a relative lack of Washington Republicans, especially in the Senate, willing to provide him with much, if any, political cover.