Re:Senators seek to stop shutdowns forever, after McCarthy’s...
by jfengel on Monday September 25, 2023 @02:55PM
(#37648777)
Two things:
1. From a policy standpoint, limping the government along in two week increments is a bad way to run a government. You can't start or stop programs when the budget is "do more of the same". And if the bill contains some kind of provision for only doing "essential" programs, that can be used to shut down large swaths of the government indefinitely.
2. From a political standpoint, there's a saying: "never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake". Government shutdowns are popular with certain Republicans, but it's widely seen as irresponsible. Republican leadership doesn't want a shutdown, but they are stuck an anti-government wing of their own party. (The alternative is to ignore them and work with Democrats, but the anti-government wing has threatened to remove the House Speaker if they do.)
So Democrats are not particularly incentivized to help out the House Republicans. Even if it were good for the country (see #1) it reinforces the internal politics of the Republican party that treats Democrats literally as enemies of the state. They don't want to be seen as giving in to threats.
Democrats may end up signing on to the bill anyway. They're just not co-sponsoring it, which would limit their ability to frame the bill in a way that suits their priorities.
1. From a policy standpoint, limping the government along in two week increments is a bad way to run a government. You can't start or stop programs when the budget is "do more of the same". And if the bill contains some kind of provision for only doing "essential" programs, that can be used to shut down large swaths of the government indefinitely.
2. From a political standpoint, there's a saying: "never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake". Government shutdowns are popular with certain Republicans, but it's widely seen as irresponsible. Republican leadership doesn't want a shutdown, but they are stuck an anti-government wing of their own party. (The alternative is to ignore them and work with Democrats, but the anti-government wing has threatened to remove the House Speaker if they do.)
So Democrats are not particularly incentivized to help out the House Republicans. Even if it were good for the country (see #1) it reinforces the internal politics of the Republican party that treats Democrats literally as enemies of the state. They don't want to be seen as giving in to threats.
Democrats may end up signing on to the bill anyway. They're just not co-sponsoring it, which would limit their ability to frame the bill in a way that suits their priorities.