US Federal Government Shutdown

[Idaho]

To an outsider the whole thing seems a bit mental. Although I suppose in the UK system, a parliamentary majority by the opposition would vote for a dissolution of parliament and a general election, rather than just shutting down the country. In some respects an election now in the US might well solve the issue. The electorate can give their opinion and the elected officials would be oblidged to go along with it.

Are there any opinion polls on what's going on? What's the general opinion? Does it just fracure on usual party lines, or are people annoyed with one side or the other more?

[Andres]

Congress gets paid during a shutdown, while staffers don't.

It's one of the cruel paradoxes of the government shutdown: The politicians who are most responsible for the chaos will still get paid. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of federal workers either get sent home or see their paychecks delayed.

It's probably no news to anybody here, but it's still worth mentioning imo.

Politicians aren't just detached from reality, their detachment is institutionalised:

Blame the law. And the Constitution. And Congress for not changing the law.
(...)
The current Congress can't actually stop itself from getting paid. That's because the 27th Amendment specifically says that the salaries of the House and Senate can't be altered until the start of a new term. The idea was to prevent members of Congress from handing themselves a raise before an election took place.

[CountArach]

To an outsider the whole thing seems a bit mental. Although I suppose in the UK system, a parliamentary majority by the opposition would vote for a dissolution of parliament and a general election, rather than just shutting down the country. In some respects an election now in the US might well solve the issue. The electorate can give their opinion and the elected officials would be oblidged to go along with it.

We actually had something remotely comparable in Australia, where our Senate refused to pass the supply bill that our House had passed (of course as in the UK here the House is actually the part of government with more power). In that case we dissolved parliament and had a new election. We haven't got fixed parliamentary terms though, so it isn't as difficult as it would be in the US.

Are there any opinion polls on what's going on? What's the general opinion? Does it just fracure on usual party lines, or are people annoyed with one side or the other more?

All of the polls have shown that the Republicans are coming out of this much worse and that includes Independents, who typically lean more Republican on the whole. Of course partisans break much as you would expect, though there are still a not-inconsiderable number of Republicans opposing the shutdown. But that isn't to say that Obama has come out of this well at all, just less badly:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nment-shutdown

More Americans disapprove than approve of the job being done by all three actors in the dispute over the federal budget. President Obama comes out "ahead" in the ABC News/Washington Post poll with a -9pt approval rating. Both parties in Congress are much lower. Democrats in Congress manage to maintain a net approval of -22pt, while Republicans in Congress fall to a -37pt approval rating. These are all awful.

[Fisherking]

The Republican party is seriously handicapped when it comes to dealing with the public.

They never seem to get anything right.

Of course, the media does them no favors either, generally presenting things from bias towards the left.

Technically it is the Senate and the President who shut down the government by refusing to act on the House Budget Bill.

There is absolutely nothing new in this political game. It used to be known as legislation by appropriation and this is by no means the first time it has been done.

Also just because it is a law (the ACA) doesn’t mean that it has to be funded or enforced. There have been more than a couple of laws passed by Congress that the Executive Branch simply ignored.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Technically it is the Senate and the President who shut down the government by refusing to act on the House Budget Bill.

Or, equally, it is the House's fault for refusing to act on the revised Bill which has been handed back by the Senate...

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'd be less disgusted with Obama and the dems if they would negotiate instead of pretending that the Republicans don't have them by the balls--as usual, because Dems are smug and ineffective at anything they try to do. Both parties are trying to be something they are not.

While I can appreciate the logic of this position, there comes a point where trying to negotiate with someone whose aims are opposition and obstruction is pointless. The conservative party is almost always in the position of strength. All they have to do to hold one branch and forbid everything. That in the US this can lead to a total shutdown of government is a weakness of the system, though one that is in accord with Libertarian ideals.

At some point (and you can debate whether this is the appropriate time) the Democrats have to make a stand, or, as indeed has happened, the Republicans will use every budget/debt ceiling debate to try and seize concessions....

[Fisherking]

Or, equally, it is the House's fault for refusing to act on the revised Bill which has been handed back by the Senate...

All spending originates from the House of Representatives. It is not rally the Senates place to offer spending bills. It is actually a pretty arrogant measure for them to do so. So, NO!

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Spending bills originate with the House: it is the Senate's right to amend it.

My point: it cuts both ways. If the Senate is at fault for not passing the bill unamended, the House is at fault for ignoring the amendments and trying again to pass the unamended bill.

[Fisherking]

Spending bills originate with the House: it is the Senate's right to amend it.

My point: it cuts both ways. If the Senate is at fault for not passing the bill unamended, the House is at fault for ignoring the amendments and trying again to pass the unamended bill.

They are both at fault. Don’t get me wrong. Blaming one side and not the other is just ignoring reality and their silly political games.

Negotiation and compromise is what politics is about. That would occur if only one party had control.

We should be screaming at both Houses of Congress to compromise and get on with business. And tell the President to stop the games to make his side look good and lesson the impact.

The ACA is flawed and needs reworked, not necessarily to something the Republicans want but to something both sides can live with and actually help some people.

If you go through the provisions of the law I am sure you would agree.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spending bills originate with the House: it is the Senate's right to amend it.

My point: it cuts both ways. If the Senate is at fault for not passing the bill unamended, the House is at fault for ignoring the amendments and trying again to pass the unamended bill.

Well, both of you are correct according to the Constitution. In practice, however, it has become the expected norm that the President proposes a budget which is then introduced in the House by someone form his (so far only his) party.



Ellis and Anderson, both conflict scholars, note in their book that there are two "macro" categories for conflict resolution: struggle and negotiation.

Struggle tends to be the choice by any and all conflicting parties until they become convinced that they cannot unilaterally impose their preferred resolution. Negotiation becomes the choice when the cost of struggle is too high or when the outcome of struggle efforts fall short. It is a sad truth that few parties opt for negotiation as a first choice.

So far, the costs have not become high enough to the participants either to force one side to capitulate or to shift their resolution efforts to negotiation.


Both sides are using the term negotiation, but they seek capitulation. There have been no negotiations thus far, only non-violent forms of "struggle."