Do you support the Stop STUPIDITY Act?

[Quetzal]

Not far enough, since the acronym doesn't fit what it's supposed to be short for.

"Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage In The Coming Years" abbreviates to "STUPIDCY," not "STUPIDITY."

The irony is not lost on me.

 

[Nous]

As this is merely another form of Congress delegating it's responsibility and enables more partisan politics not less.

Exactly what responsibilities of Congress are delegated by such a law, and how does it accomplish that?

How would such a law make Congress more partisan? Members of both parties have proposed similar laws. Given the unpopularity of the shutdown and the fact that both parties have proposed such a bill, it seems likely such a bill would get bipartisan support.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who in the hell comes up with these names? Do they just think of a word to turn into acronym and thrown in randomly related words, such as how the PATRIOT act got stuck standing for whatever it stands for?

 

[Nous]

This is a very reasonable position and I believe you are correct regarding your comparison. However, what if we leverage the richest Congress person to the poorest Congress person? I wonder what that comparison would look like. I think it is just as reasonable to assume that someone like McConnell who has been in office since 1985 is much better off than a junior member who was just elected. (You can use any senior member, I just chose McConnell since he has been around so long.) That is the leverage I am afraid of.


The point is that leverage can become a political tool that isn't present right now. However, if this system is implemented where the pay of the lawmakers can be withheld, it will be.

I don't understand what you mean here. How would this law enable "us" to "leverage the richest Congress person to the poorest Congress person"? Please explain the process you are referring to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would such a law make Congress more partisan? Members of both parties have proposed similar laws. Given the unpopularity of the shutdown and the fact that both parties have proposed such a bill, it seems likely such a bill would get bipartisan support.

I've been trying to think how a law like this could be gamed... I'm not sure I know enough about the details of the American system to say for sure.

I think @Shad 's concern is valid in some cases. For instance, imagine a scenario like what recently happened: going from the House and Senate both controlled by Party A to Party A retaining control of the Senate but losing the House to Party B.

Imagine that this law is in place and Party A realizes that they could lose their dominance in the next election. They pass a budget that is completely aligned with their priorities.

After the election, Party B now controls the House and wants to implement some of their own priorities through the next year's budget. In the past, the two parties had incentive to work together, because it was in both parties' interest to avoid a government shutdown.

However, with a shutdown off the table because of this new law, consider the A-controlled Senate's options: if they defeat or otherwise block a House budget bill, they get to keep a budget that's completely aligned with A's own priorities. If they compromise, they're only giving up things A values to let B score points.

... so your idea could create situations with weird BATNAs that advantage the party that just used to be in power, especially in situations where neither party is strong enough to dominate.

 

[Thief]

so the bill.....
insures the same level of spending as the previous year

and does not curtail spending

and is likely to inflate the situation.......

sounds like an Act of Stupidity

 

[Nous]

I've been trying to think how a law like this could be gamed... I'm not sure I know enough about the details of the American system to say for sure.

I think @Shad 's concern is valid in some cases. For instance, imagine a scenario like what recently happened: going from the House and Senate both controlled by Party A to Party A retaining control of the Senate but losing the House to Party B.

Imagine that this law is in place and Party A realizes that they could lose their dominance in the next election. They pass a budget that is completely aligned with their priorities.

After the election, Party B now controls the House and wants to implement some of their own priorities through the next year's budget. In the past, the two parties had incentive to work together, because it was in both parties' interest to avoid a government shutdown.

However, with a shutdown off the table because of this new law, consider the A-controlled Senate's options: if they defeat or otherwise block a House budget bill, they get to keep a budget that's completely aligned with A's own priorities. If they compromise, they're only giving up things A values to let B score points.

... so your idea could create situations with weird BATNAs that advantage the party that just used to be in power, especially in situations where neither party is strong enough to dominate.

Thank you. The scenario you describe could happen. Nevertheless, why would it be better or more fair to shut down the government and cause so much pain to so many people who can't afford to go without paychecks rather than withholding the paychecks of the members of Congress and the president? After all, not having the Act does not guarantee a better budget or a budget more favorable to Party A or B.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't understand what you mean here. How would this law enable "us" to "leverage the richest Congress person to the poorest Congress person"? Please explain the process you are referring to.

I'm sorry, not us (as in you and me). Imagine a very wealthy Democratic Senator engaging with a new, first term Republican Senator. The budget is attempting to pass but the Democrat needs the support of the Republican. They could go to him and say "Hey, allow this to pass or we will shut this place down. I can afford to live for the next 6 months without changing anything. How long can you last? A month? Maybe two? I know you have bills to pay and kids to feed. It would be too bad if you didn't have the money to do it."

 

[Nous]

I'm sorry, not us (as in you and me). Imagine a very wealthy Democratic Senator engaging with a new, first term Republican Senator. The budget is attempting to pass but the Democrat needs the support of the Republican. They could go to him and say "Hey, allow this to pass or we will shut this place down. I can afford to live for the next 6 months without changing anything. How long can you last? A month? Maybe two? I know you have bills to pay and kids to feed. It would be too bad if you didn't have the money to do it."

OK, yes, I get that. Still how is that worse than what did happen to many more innocent federal employees? Besides, the scenario you describe will have to happen to a number of 'poor" Congress members, and I find it unrealistic that an extremely bad budget would actually get enacted that way. The 'extorted' Senator could certainly publicize this extortion, an opportunity that a furloughed worker would not have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thank you. The scenario you describe could happen. Nevertheless, why would it be better or more fair to shut down the government and cause so much pain to so many people who can't afford to go without paychecks rather than withholding the paychecks of the members of Congress and the president?

I don't think it would be. It's better for a budget that covers all the government's basic functions to continue, I think. I just worry about what other opportunities for problems it could create.

Right now, I think that shutdowns are the more serious problem. Historically, a lack of need to go to the elected body for money has created other problems; consider the example of the Long Parliament: it would play out differently in the American system, but if a regime or party doesn't have to go back to Parliament/Congress for money, it can operate for a long time without any accountability. Look at how much McConnell was able to obstruct new legislation; one check on that sort of behaviour is the fact that, if it goes on long enough, the whole government grinds to a halt for lack of money. At some point, the Senate has to stop and listen to the House, because otherwise, the Senate loses the power to do anything it wants to do. If the rules are changed so that the money always keeps flowing, then Congress - especially the House - loses a pretty powerful tool to ensure accountability and responsiveness.

After all, not having the Act does not guarantee a better budget or a budget more favorable to Party A or B.

No, but it does create more motivation to compromise. Nobody's going to compromise to avoid a shutdown if there's no possibility of a shutdown.

 

[ecco]

I thought "Stop STUPIDITY" was an act to have vasectomies performed on all male Trump supporters over the age of 13.

 

[Quetzal]

OK, yes, I get that. Still how is that worse than what did happen to many more innocent federal employees? Besides, the scenario you describe will have to happen to a number of 'poor" Congress members, and I find it unrealistic that an extremely bad budget would actually get enacted that way. The 'extorted' Senator could certainly publicize this extortion, an opportunity that a furloughed worker would not have.

Fair point, I will think about this some more. It was just a thought that popped up. You might be correct in that it is a non-issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Nous - out of curiosity: would there be anything stopping Congress from passing a budget that would provide for its own continuation?

It seems like that would allow better tweaking of which amounts should continue indefinitely and which amounts are for one-time items that shouldn't be automatically repeated.

 

[Shad]

Exactly what responsibilities of Congress are delegated by such a law, and how does it accomplish that?

Funding is a duty of Congress. This law enables the minority to shutdown requested by POTUS and supported by the major, it bypasses negotiations then merely tosses out previous funding with no resolution on the current year's funding. This is a powerful law for the minority party enabling it to do nothing regarding funding without consequences.

How would such a law make Congress more partisan?

As the law provided the minority party more power in bloc voting such as seen in the House.

Members of both parties have proposed similar laws.

No surprise career politicians want laws which bail them out of their duties.

Given the unpopularity of the shutdown and the fact that both parties have proposed such a bill, it seems likely such a bill would get bipartisan support.

Sure. For the sake of votes while delegating their duties to a law

 

[Shad]

I've been trying to think how a law like this could be gamed... I'm not sure I know enough about the details of the American system to say for sure.

I think @Shad 's concern is valid in some cases. For instance, imagine a scenario like what recently happened: going from the House and Senate both controlled by Party A to Party A retaining control of the Senate but losing the House to Party B.

Imagine that this law is in place and Party A realizes that they could lose their dominance in the next election. They pass a budget that is completely aligned with their priorities.

After the election, Party B now controls the House and wants to implement some of their own priorities through the next year's budget. In the past, the two parties had incentive to work together, because it was in both parties' interest to avoid a government shutdown.

However, with a shutdown off the table because of this new law, consider the A-controlled Senate's options: if they defeat or otherwise block a House budget bill, they get to keep a budget that's completely aligned with A's own priorities. If they compromise, they're only giving up things A values to let B score points.

... so your idea could create situations with weird BATNAs that advantage the party that just used to be in power, especially in situations where neither party is strong enough to dominate.

Good example along the lines I was thinking of.

 

[Shad]

OK, yes, I get that. Still how is that worse than what did happen to many more innocent federal employees? Besides, the scenario you describe will have to happen to a number of 'poor" Congress members, and I find it unrealistic that an extremely bad budget would actually get enacted that way. The 'extorted' Senator could certainly publicize this extortion, an opportunity that a furloughed worker would not have.

As the problems Congress and government itself filters down to the public. This law enables bad politicians to avoid public outcry for being bad at their jobs.

 

[Shad]

I don't think it would be. It's better for a budget that covers all the government's basic functions to continue, I think. I just worry about what other opportunities for problems it could create.

Right now, I think that shutdowns are the more serious problem. Historically, a lack of need to go to the elected body for money has created other problems; consider the example of the Long Parliament: it would play out differently in the American system, but if a regime or party doesn't have to go back to Parliament/Congress for money, it can operate for a long time without any accountability. Look at how much McConnell was able to obstruct new legislation; one check on that sort of behaviour is the fact that, if it goes on long enough, the whole government grinds to a halt for lack of money. At some point, the Senate has to stop and listen to the House, because otherwise, the Senate loses the power to do anything it wants to do. If the rules are changed so that the money always keeps flowing, then Congress - especially the House - loses a pretty powerful tool to ensure accountability and responsiveness.


No, but it does create more motivation to compromise. Nobody's going to compromise to avoid a shutdown if there's no possibility of a shutdown.

Again another good example

 

[Nous]

I don't think it would be. It's better for a budget that covers all the government's basic functions to continue, I think. I just worry about what other opportunities for problems it could create.

Right now, I think that shutdowns are the more serious problem. Historically, a lack of need to go to the elected body for money has created other problems; consider the example of the Long Parliament: it would play out differently in the American system, but if a regime or party doesn't have to go back to Parliament/Congress for money, it can operate for a long time without any accountability. Look at how much McConnell was able to obstruct new legislation; one check on that sort of behaviour is the fact that, if it goes on long enough, the whole government grinds to a halt for lack of money. At some point, the Senate has to stop and listen to the House, because otherwise, the Senate loses the power to do anything it wants to do. If the rules are changed so that the money always keeps flowing, then Congress - especially the House - loses a pretty powerful tool to ensure accountability and responsiveness.


No, but it does create more motivation to compromise. Nobody's going to compromise to avoid a shutdown if there's no possibility of a shutdown.

I actually agree with you and @Quetzal in that there would undoubtedly be unintended consequences of this law, as there presumably are with most laws. Nevertheless this shutdown was horrible, and could have quickly become irrecoverably devastating. Someone apparently was able to talk some sense into Trump to relent since he doesn't possess such sense himself. I'm out about $3000 because it just happened to coincide with a project where the defendants took advantage of the closure of the USDA. There are undoubtedly thousands of people who lost uncounted dollars. As I noted on another thread, the shutdown could easily have prevented crops from getting planted. Imagine that!

Congress and the President are the ones in the driver's seat. They're the ones who need to feel the pain when they don't act like adults.

 

[Nous]

Funding is a duty of Congress.

The Senate approved of a bipartisan budget by voice vote. Trump refused it. Congress did not delegate any responsibility to anyone else.

This law enables the minority to shutdown requested by POTUS

This bill does not provide any minority any additional power than any other law provides.

 

[Nous]

@Nous - out of curiosity: would there be anything stopping Congress from passing a budget that would provide for its own continuation?

Well, this bill would allow continued funding at current levels in case of an impasse. Appropriations for Defense must be every 2 years.