13 Comments
User's avatar
Melissa  Jennings's avatar

Very helpful article and analogy.

Expand full comment
Ken Kovar's avatar

This is great. Now we all know that the Democrats are the real adults in the room and need to insist that the law be followed! Thanks 🙏

Expand full comment
Douglas Bailey's avatar

Is there an impoundment case going through the courts to define this as unconstitutional? Seems to be a critical issue that needs binding court decisions. My concern is that the conservative SCOTUS justices will find some way to creatively reconcile this with the plain language of the constitution and law that prohibit it.

Expand full comment
Robert Viney's avatar

Interested in a guest essay on how to fix the broken process? It isn’t easy or quick, but there is a path to minimizing divisiveness and inefficiency in how we are being governed today, and strengthening the protections against challenges like this in the next hundred years or so. Reply to this comment if interested and provide an email for follow-up conversation.

Expand full comment
Ben Raderstorf's avatar

Would be curious to hear more! My email is firstname dot lastname at protectdemocracy dot org

Expand full comment
Robert Viney's avatar

Hi Ben, sent you an email on the details on Wednesday. Please let me know at bobviney70@gmail.com if not received. If you received it, schedule time for a zoom or teams call to discuss?

Expand full comment
MK Whalen's avatar

The idea has been floated over the years to amend the law under title 31 to simply continue automatically (no CR, no new authorizations) until appropriations are enacted. Allows government to remain fully operational without furloughs. Not ideal but certainly less waste of taxpayer dollars that occurs with each shutdown. Not surprising, however, It’s never gotten much traction in Congress.

Expand full comment
Ben Raderstorf's avatar

My understanding is that's how budgeting works in most other countries, at least!

Expand full comment
Robert Viney's avatar

Have to go around Congress, I’m afraid, to change the rules they’ve put in place in the interests of incumbents and the 2 major parties and their donors, not in the interests of the country overall. Not easy but the path for real change to minimize partisanship and self interest is provided in the Constitution.

Expand full comment
Robert Viney's avatar

Sounds like another crutch to avoid doing their jobs.

Expand full comment
Doug Criscitello's avatar

Terrific essay. No easy answers though. This shutdown fight is unprecedented. It’s not only about how long a shutdown might last. It is about whether the government that emerges afterward will look fundamentally different — and follow the same set of constitutional procedures — from the one that entered it.

Expand full comment
Margaret Willits's avatar

This is a somewhat simplistic analogy. The article provides a lot of useful information on the laws involved. It does not consider that the country's credit rating may be affected nor the effects to programs, those who depend upon them, and federal workers. I wish it were simple and would only affect the child. It is the main way for a vote of no confidence in this system.

Expand full comment
Jerry McIntire's avatar

Tell it to your Republican representatives in Congress. No more appeasement, the entire country is at stake-- not just credit ratings.

Expand full comment