undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCamTin7y ago0 comments

Nobody "came up with" the idea. It's the consequence of a principle of the American Constitution, wherein only Congress can appropriate money. This is a bedrock principle, because it provides a check on the Executive: The President can yell all he wants, but unless Congress appropriates money to pay for whatever it is he is yelling about (in this case, a border wall), he doesn't get it.

For observers outside the US, the idea of "the national government shutting down" probably seems way way more alarming that it does to most Americans. Almost all basic services in the US are handled by states and municipalities. This includes garbage collection, policing, firefighters, schools, local tax collection, road maintenance, the majority of prisons, most courts, most water and power infrastructure, building inspections and permitting, and many more.

Even airports, the site of a lot of hand-wringing during the shutdown due to the TSA (security screeners) and air-traffic controllers being federal employees, are usually (always?) municipally or state-owned. I have no idea of the legality of these municipalities or the airlines themselves stepping in to pay the ATCs or screeners, but it doesn't seem totally bonkers.

0 comments

widforss7y ago

Thanks for elaborating.

The Swedish tradition is that you cannot vote to stop a budget, you can only vote for another proposal. That is, if there is only one proposal, you only allow 'yes' or 'abstain' votes, and if there are several, you do a series of votes to eliminate the lesser proposals until only one stands, and then only allow 'yes' or 'abstain' again.

I hope that explains why I find it so strange.

Another peculiarity we use to avoid stand-offs (it has always worked up until last election) is negative parliamentarism, where the prime minister is tolerated, not elected by the parliament. What it means is that a majority of MPs have to vote "no" to not elect a prime minister, which means that a lot of parties vote "abstain" (we had such a vote yesterday where the PM was tolerated with the numbers yes: 115, no: 153, abstain: 77, absent:4). This has historically meant that minority governments have been able to flourish.

foxylad7y ago

Thanks for explaining this to us non-USians.

So is the current problem is because the president can veto congresses appropriations? In a functioning government this seems sensible so the executive has a symmetric check on congress, but currently it gives the president unwarranted leverage.

CamTinOP7y ago

Congress can override a Presidential veto, but it requires a 2/3 majority, which neither party has by itself (due to parliamentary rules, it's slightly more complicated than that in ways that I don't totally understand, but that's the high-school-civics-version). The President isn't actually necessary to reopen the government: Congressional Democrats and Republicans could come to a deal that got them to the 2/3 mark if they wanted to, even over the President's objections. Whether or not that will happen in this cases is anyone's guess.

pjc507y ago

The problem is threefold:

1) it's not a true shutdown because the military still get paid. There is a builtin rightwing fudge of what gets deemed "essential".

2) Most governments have a similar possibility of not being able to pass a budget; but, in the Westminster system, this forces fresh elections. The people get to decide on what compromise is necessary to resume business.

3) Businesses should not make their employees into creditors. Failing to make payroll is usually a sign that a business is either unethical or nearly bankrupt. This screws over people badly, e.g. https://twitter.com/shawndgoldman/status/1085733207469891585

"The NASA Postdoctoral Program contract runs out of money tomorrow. This means its fellows - some of the best and brightest space scientists in the world - will go without pay starting Friday. These folks are contractors, which means they aren't covered by the backpay bill."

(There was also some suggestion that not being paid would automatically terminate their J-1 visas, but I can't find that now)

toast07y ago

>The problem is threefold:

>1) it's not a true shutdown because the military still get paid. There is a builtin rightwing fudge of what gets deemed "essential".

The military still gets paid because congress was able to agree to pay for that. It's certainly possible, for congress to be unable to agree to a DoD budget. Separating the budget process into a series of sub-budgets allows for continuity in areas where there's room for consensus.

> 2) Most governments have a similar possibility of not being able to pass a budget; but, in the Westminster system, this forces fresh elections. The people get to decide on what compromise is necessary to resume business.

Presumably, the government is shutdown until the votes are certified? And how long do the newly elected representatives have to form a budget, before a second election would be triggered? Regardless, for better or worse, the US system does not allow for snap elections, and that would be a big change, especially given the design of different term lengths for different offices.

> 3) Businesses should not make their employees into creditors.

Yes, this is pretty awful. I would be raising some hell if my employer expected me to work without paying me contemporaneously.

hakfoo7y ago

>Presumably, the government is shutdown until the votes are certified?

This can be solved by setting the budget deadline some time before the expiration of the past budget. You have until July 1 to pass a budget for 2020; if there isn't one, we hold elections in August for your replacement, giving them several months to pull together something workable.

goodcanadian7y ago

Presumably, the government is shutdown until the votes are certified?

No. I'm not an expert in the details, but there are rules about how government services continue to operate during the period that Parliament is dissolved. The key principle, however, is that it continues to operate.

Armisael167y ago

Most of the military is still being paid because the DoD isn’t one of the unfounded agencies. The coast guard, however, is currently working without pay, because they’re part of commerce.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse