Going Nuclear

The nuclear option has been deployed! We're all going to have to duck and cover!

If you're nervous about the frighteningly named "nuclear option" that you've been hearing so much about, you shouldn't be. The "nuclear option" is a dramatic name given to a rare procedural rules change the Democrats in the Senate implemented on Thursday. The measure prevents the minority from filibustering presidential nominees for cabinet positions and all judicial posts except ones on the Supreme Court.

When did filibusters become such a problem? We rarely see Senators take to the floor, a la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and speak for hours to prevent a bill from being voted on. The last time someone in the Senate held the floor with a long-winded speech was Rand Paul's filibusterin March over Obama's nominee for the director of the CIA. (Ted Cruz's marathon speech doesn't count, as it was not technically a filibuster.)

But there is another kind of filibuster that has been used far more often in recent months called the "silent filibuster." With a silent filibuster, a Senator, or group of Senators threatens to hold to floor, and to override this threat, the majority party must achieve cloture on the legislation. What that means is, in order to stop debate, both real and threatened, 60 must vote to end debate. Only then can they proceed to a simple up or down vote on the legislation or nomination.

Why would the threat of a filibuster scare the majority party into compliance? Many people argue that, in the threat of a filibuster, the majority party should just let the minority party talk, and wear them down. In recent years, however, this has not been effective. If a bill is filibustered for too long, and fails too many cloture votes, it is pulled from the floor and effectively killed. This has happened several times in recent years with Democrat's bills. Eventually, the Democrats started to listen to the filibuster threats and responding with increasing cloture votes.

Not anymore. With the rule change, the Republicans are not allowed to hold a talking or a silent filibuster against any presidential nominees for cabinet positions or the judiciary branch. The only presidential appointees that can still be filibustered are Supreme Courtjustices. The bill passed 52-48, withthree democrats defecting. Two were from red states, and Senator Carl Levin (D-MN) is merely an opponent of a change in rules.

How did Senator Reid (D-NV) change the rules? It came down a slightly complicated series of votes. Basically, Senator Reid asked that the Senate vote on a motion to proceed to a motion to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Millet to the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's a lot of motions in one vote. In normal English, that means the Senate will proceed to another cloture vote (or a vote ending debate) on the nomination of Patricia Millet. As motions only need 51 votes, this passed. The Senator McConnell (R-KY) moved to adjourn the Senate,which failed. Senator Reid moved to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Millet. As this was not a motion of cloture, and merely a motion to reconsider cloture, it also passed with a simple majority. Finally, Senator Reid asked for the Senate Pro Tempore, Senator Leahy (D-VT) to rule as to whether ornot cloture on nominees took 60 votes and the chair ruled that they do.

And here's where it becomes tricky. Senator Reid asked to appeal the ruling of the chair, which meant that Senators were asked if they agreed that nominees needed a 60 vote cloture or if nominees could be passed with a simple majority of 51 Senators. This was the key vote that came down to 48 Senators (mostly Republican) agreeing with the ruling of the chair, and 52 Senators (entirely Democratic, including the chair) disagreeingwith the ruling. And with that, the Senate rules were changed.

This rule change will certainly make the Senate more effective, there's not question about that. But while there is still a mechanism for the minority to voice their dissent, mainly in committee hearings of nominees, this rule change takes significant power away from the minority. Especially when you consider that judges are how many presidents ensure their policies will be carried out after they leave office. By removing the possibility of a cloture vote, it will be harder for the minority to prevent the nomination of judges they may not agree with.

For more information on how the silent filibuster works, this Washington Post article and accompanying graphic explains it better than I could: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/14/the-silent-filibuster-explained/

The Trouble With 20-Week Abortion Bans

On November 19^th, my hometown of Albuquerque New Mexico will vote on a 20-week abortion ban, similar to the one that was passed in Texas last summer. As someone who has been pro-choice since before I knew what an abortion was, I am enraged by this and am discussing it with anyone who will listen.

Usually, when I bring up this topic with friends and acquaintances, the conversation goes something like this:

            Me: They’re trying to pass a 20-week abortion ban in my hometown.

            Friend: Really? Wait…how many months is 20 weeks?

            Me: Five.

            Friend: Five months? That sounds pretty standard for an abortion ban.

           

Tt’s a common opinion that many people our age seem to share. However, it’s a misconception. 20 weeks is not standard for an abortion ban; not in individual states, not in Roe v. Wade, and not in terms of women’s health.

           

Most states have viability bans, which means a woman cannot have an abortion if her fetus can live outside the womb, which is understood by health care professionals to be 24 weeks, or six months. Currently, 9 states have bans on abortion at 20 weeks, ten have no restrictions on abortion, and the rest have viability bans.

Roe v. Wade gave women the right to have an abortion for any reason in the first three months of pregnancy, without interference from states. It gave states the right to pass abortion regulations for the second and third trimester if it would protect the mother’s health. States are only allowed to pass regulationsthat will protect the life of the child in the third trimester. That means, if a state is trying to pass a law to ban abortion at 20 weeks because allegedly, fetuses feel pain, it would be an unconstitutional law.

But why is a 20-week abortion ban so dangerous? If most states ban abortion after 24 weeks, how is this ban different? The people who have abortions after 20 weeks are usually not people who decided they did not want their baby, or realized they were pregnant too late. Usually, the people who have an abortion so late realize that there is something wrong with their child that will prevent it from living outside the womb at all. Fetal abnormalities that would prevent a baby from surviving outside the mother are usually only seen on ultrasounds at or after 20 weeks. Some women are often unable to access prenatal care during their first trimester, and the women who do often decline genetic screening. This prevents physicians from diagnosing abnormalities early. Therefore,  an ultrasound at 20 weeks is the recommended and optimal time for a complete fetal anatomy scan of all major organs, fetal growth, and to diagnose any anomalies.  This ultrasound is rarely performed before the 20-week mark, as many anomalies are usually not detectable earlier in pregnancy.

No woman should be forced to carry a child for nine months if she knows the child will not live, just as no woman should be forced to have an abortion for a child that she is told will die outside her womb. The decision to terminate a pregnancy must be between a woman and her health care provider, especially if a severe birth defect is involved.

The Shutdown is Over!

This post is several weeks too late, but if Congress taught me anything during the government shutdown, it’s that you can refuse to do something, and then blame others when it isn’t done. Which will be my strategy when my papers aren't turned in on time.

           

If you didn’t notice, the government shutdown ended several weeks ago after the House and the Senate finally passed a bill. The bill, created by the Senate, fund the government until January 7^th, and raised the debt ceiling until February 7^th. Obamacare was not defunded or delayed. The only provision that related to Obamacare is that now the government is required to make sure people are eligible forsubsidized healthcare. For those of you keeping score, this means the Democrats were able to have what they asked for, while the Republicans did not end the shutdown with anything they wanted.

As you can imagine, Republicans were not happy about this. They were so not happy about this that 18 Republicans in the Senate voted against the measure. 144 House Republicans voted against the bill as well.

           

The bill also includes a clause that mandates a budget conference committee by December 13^th, the same thing the Democrats in the Senate have been calling for since they passed their budget.

Here’s hoping the December conference committee will create a budget that will fund the government for more than a few months, and our Congress can stop acting like a college student who waited to write a paper until the night before it was due. Speaking of which…

Raise The Roof (Or the Debt Ceiling...)

Negotiations to raise the debt ceiling for six weeks were over almost as quickly as they began. Late Thursday night, we started to hear that Congressional Republicans were going to meet with the White House to discuss possible negotiations. But early Saturday morning, House Republicans left their meeting with no deals and no plans for the coming days.[1]

           

With the threat of the nation’s default hanging over their heads, Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) met to negotiate.[2] On Saturday, Senator Reid introduced a bill that would raise the debt ceiling to 1.1 trillion which would keep our country from defaulting until after the elections in 2014.[3] Unfortunately, fewer than sixty senators voted to proceed to debate which means that cloture on the motion to proceed was not achieved.[4]

           

In layman’s terms, that means that not enough Senators voted to debate on the bill. The vote fell mostly along party lines, with 53 Senators voting for the motion and 45 voting against. 60 Senators must vote yes to achieve cloture (which basically ends debate on something).[5]

Senator Reid, however, at the last minute, switched his vote to a no, which leaves him the opportunity to bring up the same bill at a later time.[6]

The Senate is debating again today, and we will all (well, maybe just me) anxiously await the possibility of a bill that will fix our most recent fiscal crisis.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/politics/budget-and-debt-limit-debate.html?_r=0

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/politics/budget-and-debt-limit-debate.html?_r=0

[3] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328225-white-house-slams-senate-gop-for-blocking-debt-ceiling-hike-

[4] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328225-white-house-slams-senate-gop-for-blocking-debt-ceiling-hike-

[5] http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/10/12/roll-call-vote-on-cloture-on-mtp-to-s-1569-debt-limit-dec-31-2014/

[6] http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/10/12/roll-call-vote-on-cloture-on-mtp-to-s-1569-debt-limit-dec-31-2014/

October Crisis Part 2: This Time It's Our Debt

At last, like a light in the darkness, we are starting to hear whisperings of the possibility of debt limit negotiations.

Friday, GOP leaders met with President Obama to talk about raising the debt ceiling for six weeks[1] This bill will include a short-term debt limit increase as well as a promise to go to conference, in exchange for a promise from Obama to discuss long-term deficit reduction solutions. Speaker Boehner (R-OH) also hopes the talks will include negotiations to end the government shutdown.

That’s right. There are no current plans to end the government shutdown, merely a promise to raise the debt ceiling for a short six weeks.

So who is happy about this? The short answer is almost no one. Conservative Republicans are upset because many have promised never to vote on a clean debt ceiling raise.[2] The Democrats are unhappy because they do not think raising the debt ceiling for six weeks enough. They would prefer a long-term solution, possibly a year.[3] Senator Reid (D-NV) said this six week raise was “never going to happen” but did promise to wait and see what the House does.[4] For the Majority Leader, reopening the government with the clean continuing resolution is a top priority that he believes should be addressed with the raise of the debt limit.

As the shutdown drags, Republicans are beginning to appear more willing to negotiate. This is partly due to recent polling data that shows that only 28% of people view the Republican Party as favorable, the lowest number that has been reported since 1992.[5]

           

They might not listen to their constituents, or party leaders, or the president, but all politicians listen to poll numbers. Let’s hope this is enough to motivate all sides to negotiate.

---

[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/signs-of-thaw-as-house-gop-proposes-short-debt-limit-extension-20131010

[2] http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/signs-of-thaw-as-house-gop-proposes-short-debt-limit-extension-20131010

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606888/house-republicans-propose-short-term-debt-limit-hike/

[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606999/10-days-after-government-shutdown-obama-and-gop-start-negotiating/

[5] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/10/republicans-are-setting-new-records-unpopularity/70367/

Ending the Shutdown

It’s very easy to look at the government shutdown and feel an overwhelming sense of anger and despair. I would know. I’ve been feeling that way for almost a week. It can seem like there is no end in sight, and that Congress will never reach a compromise and reopen the government.

But do not despair blog readers (all two of you)! This shutdown could end tomorrow if Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) would allow the House to vote on the clean continuing resolution that the Senate has passed.

But Bella, you say, that’s not possible. The House is controlled by Republicans!

Thankfully, there are some Republicans out there who would vote for the clean continuing resolution to fund the government through November. The Senate Democrats count 21 Republicans who have pledged to vote for the clean CR[1], and a recent Washington Post blog post counts 20[2]. 195 Democrats have signed a letter to Boehner calling for him to pass a clean CR[3]. If the Democrats can get one or two Republicans on their side (which by some accounts, they have already done) the clean CR would pass the House by a slim majority.[4]

So why hasn’t Boehner even brought this to the floor? Because there is a common practice in politics, known as the Hastert Rule. This says that a speaker can only bring legislation to the floor if a majority of the party in power agrees with it. However, the practice is misnamed, as this is not a hard and fast rule.[5] There is nothing in procedure of the House that says this is a rule that must be followed. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) violated the rule seven times while she was Speaker of the House and Speaker Boehner has passed four bills without the support of the majority party.[6]

If the Hastert Rule isn’t technically a real rule, why does Boehner refuse to bring the clean CR bill to the floor of the House? It could be that he is worried it will pass, and the government will reopen without his party “getting anything” from the shutdown.

Speaker Boehner insists the resolution wouldn’t pass, but on Sunday, Senator Schumer (D-NY) challenged the speaker to put it on the floor Monday or Tuesday and see if it passed.[7] While it does not seem likely that Boehner will put the clean CR up Monday or Tuesday, there is bipartisan support to re-open the government, which means an end to the shutdown isn’t far off.

---

[1] http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=news&id=265

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/02/the-fixs-clean-cr-whip-count/

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/06/majority-of-house-appears-to-support-clean-cr/

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/02/the-fixs-clean-cr-whip-count/

[5] http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/dennis-hastert-there-is-no-hastert-rule-20131003

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/06/boehner-says-no-clean-cr-schumer-says-it-would-pass/

What to do if you're angry about the government shutdown:

1. Call your Congressperson or Senator. Or both.

List of numbers is here: 

www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

www.house.gov/representatives/

There is no step 2. Just call your Senator or Representative and tell them how ridiculous and harmful this government shutdown is. Urge them to pass a clean continuing resolution without any policy attached to it so our country can get back on track. Maybe give an example of how this government shutdown is affecting you.

Make your voice heard. Your elected representatives do take that into account.

Who's To Blame?

The government hasn’t even shutdown yet, and already many Republicans are blaming the Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

           

Now you can fault Senator Reid for some things. He doesn’t always stand up to the Republicans the way he should and he is more boring than the teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. But this shutdown cannot be blamed on him, or any Democrat.

Anyone want to go to conference? Anyone? Anyone?

The shutdown is not possible because the government is running out of money (though that may happen soon). Rather, it is because there is no Federal budget yet, though this is not for lack of trying. The Senate passed a budget on March 23^rd[1]  and the House passed a budget on March 21^st. However, the Senate did not agree to the House's budget, and the House rejected the Senate's plan.[2]

The problem is not that no budget has been proposed, the problem is no budget has been agreed to. The House and the Senate have to send the same bill to the president to sign. When the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill,  members of the two houses of Congress will start a conference committee to work out the differences in a bill. A conference committee is a special group of Senators and Representatives appointed by their parties, usually the chairs and ranking members of relevant committees. In this case, senior members of House and Senate budget committees would likely make up a conference committee. Their job is to try to create a budget plan that both houses can agree on.[3] 

           

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, has been calling for a conference committee on the Budget since the House and Senate passed their respective bills. She has been joined by many other Democratic Senators, and some Republicans, like Senator McCain (R-AZ).[4] At this point, a conference committee is the only way Congress will pass a budget, but efforts to create a conference committee are being blocked by Republicans in the Senate and the House.[5]

Had Congress gone to conference in March, when these different budget bills were passed, our country may not be facing a shutdown. Right now, it is Senator Reid who refuses to negotiate, but if Republicans in the House and the Senate had not refused to negotiate for upwards of five months, this last minute legislating would not be necessary.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us/politics/house-passes-plan-to-avert-federal-shutdown.html?hpw&_r=0

[3] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/305141-isnt-it-about-time-for-a-budget-conference

[4] http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/08/02/2709969/murray-is-right-congress-must.html

[5] http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/08/02/2709969/murray-is-right-congress-must.html

Countdown to Shutdown

Hang onto your pants, because our country appears to be on the fast track to a shutdown.

            

Yesterday, the Senate passed their version of the appropriations bill, 54-44.[1] The bill included funding for Obamacare, and was sent back to the House. Just today, the House stated that they planned to include provisions in the appropriations bill that would delay the implementation of Obamacare for a year and eliminate the medical devices tax that is a part of Obamacare.[2] Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) made it lear that the Senate would not accept these amendments to the bill.[3] The options now are for one side to cave, for both sides to work for a compromise, or for the government to shutdown.

Given our current political climate, the shutdown seems inevitable.

But why do both sides refuse to negotiate? The Democrats will not accept a one-year delay on Obamacare. This would give Republicans the encouragement to push for more delays, potentially delaying the implementation of the law until there is a Republican president who would not veto a repeal. In addition, the Democrats believe that if people participate in Obamacare, and see what it can do, they will like it and not want to give it up, so they have been waiting for the October 1^st implementation deadline. It’s doubtful that they would vote for a delay when they are so close to opening the health insurance exchange.[4] Many Republicans, on the other hand, will accept nothing less than the defunding of Obamacare, and are uninterested in compromise.

The Senate will likely table the new House Bill on Sunday, leaving few other options besides a shutdown.[5] If there is a deal, it will likely be struck in the late hours of Monday, but at this point even that seems unlikely.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/us/politics/senate-is-expected-to-approve-budget-bill.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/politics/budget-talks-government-shutdown.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

[3] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-senate-democrats-house-cr-97500.html

[4] http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/why-delaying-obamacare-could-ultimately-do-as-much-damage-as-defunding-20130927?mrefid=site_search

[5] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-senate-democrats-house-cr-97500.html

Funding and Filibusters

Another Texan is monopolizing the Senate floor, but this time it isn’t a filibuster and I’m not inspired.

Starting on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made a 21-hour speech against Obamacare, but it wasn’t a filibuster. It was long, he wasn’t allowed to sit or leave the floor, and he was passionate. So why is this not a filibuster?

Technically, Senator Cruz was not interfering with the Senate’s business. There was a vote at 1pm today to begin debate on the continuing resolution the House passed, and Ted Cruz had the floor until then. It would only be a filibuster if he had 41 Senators who would refuse to vote to proceed to debate.[1] Majority Leader Reid had the 60 votes he needed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate of the continuing resolution, so Ted Cruz’s speech was merely grandstanding.[2]

Cloture is a motion to end debate on a topic and needs the support of 60 Senators to pass. This particular cloture vote was used to signify that Senators wanted to proceed to debating the bill the House had passed.[3] Basically, the Senate had to vote to end debate before they could have a debate.

After Senator Cruz’s marathon speech, the Senate voted to proceed to debate 100-0. [4] Not only did Senator Cruz not prevent the Senate from voting to begin the debate, he voted to begin debate on the measure. The Senate now has 30 hours to debate the continuing resolution that will fund the government until mid-December before they vote on it.[5] It is likely that the Democratic-majority Senate will strip the provision that defunds Obamacare. This means the bill will be sent back to the House for a final vote. It’s beginning to look like the vote to fund our government for another month and a half will come down to the wire.

---

[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/don-t-call-it-a-filibuster-20130924

[2] http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/don-t-call-it-a-filibuster-20130924

[3] http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/09/25/roll-call-vote-on-cloture-on-mtp-to-h-j-res-59-continuing-resolution/

[4] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00205

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-ted-cruz-ends-his-talkathon/2013/09/25/4fcf8b66-25f3-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Budget Plans and Debt Limits

Only hours after I published the post about the government shut down, the House passed its budget plan. This came as a surprise for two reasons, the first because I didn’t think the House would ever pass any sort of budget until the last minute, and the second because I honestly did not realize the House did anything on a Friday.

So what exactly did the House pass? It’s a bill that outlining how much the government will spend in the coming fiscal year, but it also includes a provision to defund Obamacare. The bill passed the House 230-189, along party lines.[1] While the bill passed in the House, it is very unlikely that it will pass the Senate unchanged, as the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Most people think that the Senate will pass a similar version of the bill, but include spending for Obamacare, and send it back to the House. However, given how slowly the Senate can move, it is likely that the bill will be sent back to the House right before the shutdown deadline of October 1^st.[2] It’s likely that a decision on a budget will come down to the wire.

And even if a budget is passed on time, and the government does not shut down, our country is not out of the woods. In a few weeks, the United States will hit our debt ceiling, and unless Congress raises the debt ceiling, the nation will default on our debts.[3] Both President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner refuse to negotiate, with the President agreeing to nothing but raising the debt ceiling, and the Speaker unwilling to do that.

A shutdown would be harmful to our country, but defaulting on our debts would be worse, and people in the country and around the world would lose faith in our “Treasury debt, widely seen as the safest investment possible.”[4] Failing to raise the debt limit could put the country in another economic crisis, similar to the recession we are still climbing out of.[5] The debt limit has been raised 78 times since 1960, and 49 of those have been under Republican presidents.[6] Raising the debt limit, while not a sustainable solution to the growing problem of our national debt, is currently the best option. For the time being, not raising the debt limit would cause more trouble than the debt would.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/politics/house-spending-bill.html?_r=0

[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57603988/house-sets-stage-for-budget-standoff-with-government-funding-vote/

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-passes-gop-spending-plan-that-defunds-obamacare/2013/09/20/4019117c-21fe-11e3-b73c-aab60bf735d0_story.html

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/politics/house-spending-bill.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

[5] http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx

[6] http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx

The Government Shutdown

It’s almost October, and that means the leaves are changing colors, the pumpkin spice latte is back, and the country once again finds itself on the brink of a possible government shutdown.

If you know nothing about the government shutdown, you’re not alone! Until two weeks ago, I thought a government shutdown meant that the police would stop working, firefighters would let houses burn down and public schools would close. That is not the case. A government shutdown does not mean the country stops working.  However, it does mean that the government stops providing many non-essential services. The Office of Management and Budget decides which government services would stop in a shutdown. Generally, agencies continue to operate in a shutdown if they are essential to protect our nation or the safety and life of the people in it. Our military would continue to fight overseas, doctors and nurses would continue to report to public hospitals, border patrol would keep going to work on the border, and our prisons would be staffed.[1]

Now if all of America’s essential services continued to run, would a shutdown really be that bad? As the daughter of a federal employee, I say yes. A government shutdown means my father, along with hundreds of thousands of other people employed by the government would go without pay for the duration of the shutdown.[2] The government shutdown in 1995-1996 lasted 28 days, so there is the potential that my father, and many other people like him, could go without pay for close to a month.

And while Social Security checks are considered a mandatory service and would be able sent out in a government shutdown, the Social Security Administration might not be able to pay people to process and send out the checks, so there is the possibility that people would go without their Social Security money.[3] In addition, the government will not be able to process any applications for student loans during a shutdown, which will negatively affect students around the country.[4]

Finally, the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan think tank in Congress estimated that the two shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 cost the government close to 1.4 billion dollars.[5] In a fight over spending and debt, it seems shocking that elected officials would even consider such a costly move.

So why is a government shutdown even being considered as a possibility? There is a committed group of Republicans in the House and the Senate who are refusing to vote for any budget that funds Obamacare. Republicans in the House will not pass the Senate budget, which contains no provision to defund Obamacare. Conversely, the democratically controlled Senate will not pass any budget the House passes, because they do not want to pass a budget with dramatic cuts to social services.[6]

This gridlock might be a surmountable obstacle, but Congress is running out of time to act. The budget needs to be passed by October 1^st, or the country could face a government shutdown.

If you think you might not be affected by a government shutdown, I urge you to think again. Most of us have a relative on Social Security. I’m sure many of us take out student loans, and some of us have parents who are federal employees. The government shutdown may not affect you personally, but it could negatively affect your relatives, your friends and your peers. And if you still need a reason to be angry about a shutdown, there is the potential that Congress would receive their paychecks, even as thousands of Americans are furloughed.[7] Changing Congressional pay takes legislation, and while a bill that stops pay for elected officials in a shutdown has passed in the Senate, the House has not passed it yet.[8]

There is no reason our elected officials should be paid if they force thousands of Americans to take an undetermined amount of unpaid leave. These people were not elected to destroy the government, they were elected to run it. If the idea of a shutdown enrages you, I urge you to call your Representative or Senator and make your voice heard. Remind them who elected them, and hopefully encourage them to act.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/frequently-asked-questions-about-a-government-shutdown/2011/04/01/AF4WPIQC_story_1.html

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/16/news/economy/government-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[3] http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/16/news/economy/government-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[4] http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-effects-of-a-federal-government-shutdown/10

[5] http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/16/news/economy/government-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/18/5-reasons-why-a-government-shutdown-is-likely-coming/

[7] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/will-members-of-congress-get-paid-in-a-shutdown/

[8] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/will-members-of-congress-get-paid-in-a-shutdown/