Will the government shut down next Thursday?

[The Mikado]

McConnell seems determined to avoid it, but Boehner's lack of control makes it possible anyway.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm thinking yes, and I'm starting to think that Boehner may not be Speaker for much longer

[Crumpets]

I'm thinking yes no, and I'm starting to think that Boehner may not be Speaker for much longer

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

One thing I'm not sure I understand: People are saying that without the PP ban in the continuing resolution, Boehner will have to rely on Democratic votes.   but in the Senate, won't the Republicans have to rely on Democratic votes anyway to avoid a filibuster of the CR?

[politicallefty]

I'm thinking yes, and I'm starting to think that Boehner may not be Speaker for much longer

Well, you were right on your second count. If you're right on the first, I might have to ask you for some lottery numbers.

[Torie]

One thing I'm not sure I understand: People are saying that without the PP ban in the continuing resolution, Boehner will have to rely on Democratic votes.   but in the Senate, won't the Republicans have to rely on Democratic votes anyway to avoid a filibuster of the CR?

I think the idea is to pass a clean resolution, tossing PP to the side, and dealing with it in reconciliation, where it has a better chance of getting to Obama's desk.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

One thing I'm not sure I understand: People are saying that without the PP ban in the continuing resolution, Boehner will have to rely on Democratic votes.   but in the Senate, won't the Republicans have to rely on Democratic votes anyway to avoid a filibuster of the CR?

I think the idea is to pass a clean resolution, tossing PP to the side, and dealing with it in reconciliation, where it has a better chance of getting to Obama's desk.

Continuing Resolution (CR) doesn't require Obama's signature though, right?    It does require though the Senate going along, so it will have to be acceptable to at least a few Democrats.  I guess those Democrats would be ok with passing basically a Republican budget for the period of the CR so long as PP funding is not removed?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

One thing I'm not sure I understand: People are saying that without the PP ban in the continuing resolution, Boehner will have to rely on Democratic votes.   but in the Senate, won't the Republicans have to rely on Democratic votes anyway to avoid a filibuster of the CR?

I think the idea is to pass a clean resolution, tossing PP to the side, and dealing with it in reconciliation, where it has a better chance of getting to Obama's desk.

Continuing Resolution (CR) doesn't require Obama's signature though, right?    It does require though the Senate going along, so it will have to be acceptable to at least a few Democrats.  I guess those Democrats would be ok with passing basically a Republican budget for the period of the CR so long as PP funding is not removed?

A CR does require Obama's signature actually.

[Torie]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

[Bacon King]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

[Cory]

Given the latest news I think the answer is pretty obviously no.

[Torie]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

You don't need 60 votes for the reconciliation process. It is subject to a ruling from the Parliamentarian however as to whether PP is enough about money rather than more about policy to qualify.

[Bacon King]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

You don't need 60 votes for the reconciliation process. It is subject to a ruling from the Parliamentarian however as to whether PP is enough about money rather than more about policy to qualify.

I don't think reconciliation is a viable route because I don't see how it wouldn't violate the Byrd Rule.

At any rate, the Vice President has the authority to overrule the Parliamentarian of the Senate, even though it hasn't been done since 1975. If it came to it, it would be simple for Biden to stop a PP-defunding budget from reaching the President's desk, if it was that so important to do so.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Probably not. Boehner staying on will probably mean he flips his caucus the bird and tries to pass a spending bill/CR with primarily Democratic votes. Possibly the same thing with the debt ceiling, which is probably the reason he's staying on through October, to get those through and then be done with it all.


If it does, I don't expect it to last more than 3 or 4 days at the most; most likely a day or two.

[The Mikado]

Boehner's parting gift may well be putting off the shutdown date until...

December 16th? Really? Only fishing for two and a half months here?

[Bacon King]

Boehner's parting gift may well be putting off the shutdown date until...

December 16th? Really? Only fishing for two and a half months here?

December 16th is two days before the scheduled end of the 2015 Session of the 114th Congress. Anyone who tries to play hardball with the budget negotiations will earn the ire of literally the entire Capitol for ruining their Christmas vacation plans

[SteveRogers]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

You don't need 60 votes for the reconciliation process. It is subject to a ruling from the Parliamentarian however as to whether PP is enough about money rather than more about policy to qualify.

I don't think reconciliation is a viable route because I don't see how it wouldn't violate the Byrd Rule.

At any rate, the Vice President has the authority to overrule the Parliamentarian of the Senate, even though it hasn't been done since 1975. If it came to it, it would be simple for Biden to stop a PP-defunding budget from reaching the President's desk, if it was that so important to do so.

That would be a neat stunt to see, but couldn't a majority of the Senate then just overrule Biden's ruling?

[Crumpets]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

You don't need 60 votes for the reconciliation process. It is subject to a ruling from the Parliamentarian however as to whether PP is enough about money rather than more about policy to qualify.

I don't think reconciliation is a viable route because I don't see how it wouldn't violate the Byrd Rule.

At any rate, the Vice President has the authority to overrule the Parliamentarian of the Senate, even though it hasn't been done since 1975. If it came to it, it would be simple for Biden to stop a PP-defunding budget from reaching the President's desk, if it was that so important to do so.

Just curious, do you know what the circumstances of this were?

[Bacon King]

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

You don't need 60 votes for the reconciliation process. It is subject to a ruling from the Parliamentarian however as to whether PP is enough about money rather than more about policy to qualify.

I don't think reconciliation is a viable route because I don't see how it wouldn't violate the Byrd Rule.

At any rate, the Vice President has the authority to overrule the Parliamentarian of the Senate, even though it hasn't been done since 1975. If it came to it, it would be simple for Biden to stop a PP-defunding budget from reaching the President's desk, if it was that so important to do so.

That would be a neat stunt to see, but couldn't a majority of the Senate then just overrule Biden's ruling?

It takes sixty votes for the Senate to overrule the Parliamentarian, including VP-acting-as-Parliamentarian

Yeah, the Pubs basically give up on PP for this round. It's bad politics. Better to get something that finesses past the 60 vote rule in the Senate later, and then if Obama vetoes, he has shut the government down. The optics are very different.

Realistically speaking though, what could possibly win the vote of at least six Democratic Senators (plus a unified GOP caucus) but still be so odious that Obama vetoes it?

You don't need 60 votes for the reconciliation process. It is subject to a ruling from the Parliamentarian however as to whether PP is enough about money rather than more about policy to qualify.

I don't think reconciliation is a viable route because I don't see how it wouldn't violate the Byrd Rule.

At any rate, the Vice President has the authority to overrule the Parliamentarian of the Senate, even though it hasn't been done since 1975. If it came to it, it would be simple for Biden to stop a PP-defunding budget from reaching the President's desk, if it was that so important to do so.

Just curious, do you know what the circumstances of this were?

At the beginning of the 1975 Session of Congress, the Senate was trying to amend the cloture rules by reducing the 2/3 supermajority required to pass cloture down to a 3/5 supermajority. VP Rockefeller overruled the Parliamentarian and allowed the rules to be amended with a simple majority and not be subject to cloture

The full story is here, under the heading "Impervious Senate"