Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-one young people are suing the federal government over climate change–and according to a recent ruling from a federal judge, they’re allowed to continue with the suit.

The 21 plaintiffs range in age from 8-19 from across the United States, and the lawsuit is being supported by an advocacy group called “Our Children’s Trust,” based in Oregon. The ideal endgame of the kids’ lawsuit would be for the federal government to come up with a concrete plan to fight climate change. They’ve filed petitions in every state, but it was the one in Oregon that a federal judge is allowing to move forward. Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, wrote:

The nascent nature of these proceedings dictate further development of the record before the court can adjudicate whether any claims or parties should not survive for trial. Accordingly, the court should deny the motions to dismiss.

Cotton also called the lawsuit unprecedented and wrote:

If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health.

The next step for the lawsuit is for another judge to review it, but Our Children’s Trust appears to be optimistic that it will be able to move forward.

The plaintiffs rely heavily on the concept of the public trust doctrine in their lawsuit. Essentially, the public trust doctrine is what allows the government to own certain resources for public use–for example the Great Lakes. The plaintiffs are arguing that the climate and atmosphere should be treated the same way. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were being infringed upon. A press release from Our Children’s Trust reads:

These plaintiffs sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, and their right to essential public trust resources, by permitting, encouraging, and otherwise enabling continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels.

So while there’s no guarantee this lawsuit will move forward, it will be one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young People Are Suing the Federal Government Over Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy became a GOP and Tea Party darling recently when he clashed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing rights to federal land. BLM confiscated — and subsequently returned after escalating safety concerns — nearly 400 of Bundy’s cattle because he has allowed them to graze on federal lands without a permit for many years, racking up an unpaid bill of over $1 million. This led to a standoff between Bundy, his friends, and Federal agents. There’s been a lot of back and forth in the political sphere — for example, Harry Reid called Bundy’s supporters domestic terrorists and everyone freaked out. And the entire incident turned Bundy into a de-facto spokesperson against Federal power, with many high-ups in the GOP supporting him.

And as so often happens — remember Joe the Plumber? — the poorly vetted farmer supported by the GOP as a representation of what is so great about this nation turns out to be pretty racist.

I’m just going to let you read Bundy’s words for yourself, courtesy of Adam Nagourney at the New York Times, because really, they’re too spectacularly offensive to paraphrase:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I don’t think I need to go into how spectacularly disturbing these statements are as a whole, but let’s just be very clear. This man, Cliven Bundy, essentially just said that he thinks that African Americans were better off as slaves. To national press. As someone who has been following politics essentially since I could read, this is probably one of the worst things I’ve ever heard.

First, in my probably futile attempt to interject some logic into Bundy’s statements, it’s clear the guy is a huge hypocrite. Because you know who receives a whole ton of government subsidies? Farmers and ranchers. Including those like Bundy himself.

In fact, that’s kind of what this entire debate is about — Bundy losing access to some of those very valuable subsidies. As a rancher, Bundy was able to graze his cattle on Federal land for about $1.35 per animal, per month. Similar accommodations on private land would run about $8-$23 per animal, per month. Now because of some policy changes, those subsides were going to be a bit less generous and create some other logistical problems, leading to Bundy’s standoff with the government. Yeah, he’s totally just against other people getting government subsidies, and thinks that getting them teaches other people bad lessons.

So how did this crazy man end up supported by some major players in the GOP, including Fox News pundits, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Dean Heller? (Although to be fair, after the racist statements came out, both Paul and Heller ran away from supporting Bundy as fast as they could.) Well to start, I think there’s something in the Tea Party’s unwavering devotion to the idea of “grassroots politics” that can be scary. The story hit national news, and immediately, the Tea Party and others rallied around him. There was no consideration that the guy in a standoff with Federal Rangers might be insane. There was no consideration that this man, who was being held up as a shining example of the little man, the oppressed farmer, and the patriot, needed to be vetted.

And that’s dangerous. Fox News, and other conservative media picked up this story right away and stuck by the man, giving a voice to the crazy racist who would usually be limited to sending offensive chain emails to his relatives or writing a letter to the editor every single week in his local paper. Now I, of course believe in free speech, and think that Bundy should have the ability to say whatever the hell he wants, even if it is gag-worthy. But the national microphone he’s been given is concerning, because now the rest of us have to listen to his racist drivel. All of this could probably have been solved by just one of those politicians who supported him sending a staffer out with a notepad and asking, “Hey Mr. Bundy, how do you feel about ____.” I have a feeling he’d have been more than willing to share his racist opinions pretty quickly.

Whether or not Bundy is right about his squabble with the Federal Government, which I think is actually at least a legitimate debate, the way in which this entire thing has played out should be incredibly concerning for the GOP. If they want to argue about the use of Federal land, fine, do that through discourse, or legislation, or debate. I’m happy to entertain that conversation. But to use a crazy racist rancher who is probably causing the expenditure of even more tax dollars by dragging the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies into this is just bad politics, plain and simple.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tea Party Darling Cliven Bundy is This Cycle’s Racist Joe the Plumber appeared first on Law Street.