Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

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.

It’s a classic concern in Washington, a seemingly annual potential: a government shutdown. Now, talk of a government shutdown looms over the Trump Administration and the 115th U.S. Congress. This week, Congressional leaders are scheduled to send President Donald Trump a spending bill, but one that notably lacks many of his most inflammatory campaign promises. It doesn’t contain any money for Trump’s border wall and it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, among other unfulfilled promises. So, if Trump vetoes the bill, the federal government won’t have the money to function and it will trigger a government shutdown. But what actually is a government shutdown? What does it mean? How often does it happen? Read on to find out.

What is a “Government Shutdown?”

Essentially a “government shutdown” happens when, for whatever reason, a spending bill is not passed. There are multiple ways this could happen. For example, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress may not be able to agree on what measures should be included. Or, the president could veto the bill. But either way, it means that federal agencies don’t have the ability to spend money–meaning they can’t pay their employees or carry out a large chunk of their tasks. That’s deemed a “shutdown.”

Is there anything Congress can do to avoid a shutdown? 

Well, obviously passing a spending bill (which is really a collection of appropriations bills in an omnibus) is the optimal course of action. But that’s not the only option, because of course, various factions in the government disagree far more often than the government actually shuts down. That’s because Congress has the ability to pass something called a “continuing resolution”–a quick stopgap measure that gives them more time to figure out the spending bill. A continuing resolution is intended to fund the government at current levels until a permanent solution is figured out.

There’s also a combined continuing resolution/omnibus solution, which would fund certain, mostly uncontroversial agencies, while also temporarily funding the controversial issues. This measure, which is called a “CRomnibus,” would allow Congress to further debate on the controversial issues, but not wrap up the rest of the agencies’ and government’s funding as well.

When has the government shut down in the past?

It actually happens relatively frequently. Since 1976, which was the first year that the budgeting system as it now stands was implemented, the government has shut down–partially or fully–18 times. Many of those shutdowns were incredibly quick and didn’t really affect anything, others were longer and more complicated. Note that many of these cases include multiple moving parts, but here are the basic gists of what stopped at least some of the cogs in the federal government from working:

• There was a shutdown for 10 days in 1976 during President Gerald Ford’s presidency. He vetoed a spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress, claiming that the spending for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare wasn’t reigned in enough.
• The government shut down three times during President Jimmy Carter’s presidency over the abortion debate alone. The shutdowns, which all occurred in 1977, were 12 days, eight days, and eight days respectively. The House wanted to continue to prohibit Medicaid funding from going to abortions; the Senate wanted to loosen the restrictions to include more exceptions.
• In 1978, also during Carter’s presidency, there was an 18-day shutdown when Carter vetoed part of a defense bill, claiming that funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was wasteful, among other issues.
• There was another shutdown during the Carter presidency in 1979, for 11 days, again related to abortion. The Senate refused to let the House give itself a pay increase without making federal abortion funding restrictions looser.
• In 1981, during President Ronald Reagan’s time in office, Reagan vetoed the spending bill after it fell $2 billion short of the cuts he wanted to make, sparking a two-day shutdown.
• The next year, still during Reagan’s presidency, there was a one-day shutdown, largely just because the House and Senate didn’t pass a spending bill in time.
• Again in 1982, Reagan threatened to veto a spending bill that set aside money for job creation, while neglecting to fund a defense program his administration saw as a priority. This led to a three-day shutdown.
• In 1983, the House passed a bill that gave more money to education, but cut foreign affairs spending and defense spending. Reagan didn’t like any of that. The resulting debate led to another three-day shutdown.
• In 1984, there was another short shutdown of two days, again because Congress wanted to fund (and to not fund) certain provisions against Reagan’s wishes, including a water projects package and civil rights measure. That led to another one-day shutdown when Congress and the White House failed to get everything together after a three-day extension.
• In 1986, there was a one-day shutdown when, once again, the Democrat-controlled House and Republican President Reagan disagreed over provisions in a funding bill.
• The last shutdown of Reagan’s presidency occurred for a day in 1987 when the president and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t agree on whether or not to fund the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants.
• There was a three-day shutdown in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush. Bush vetoed a measure that didn’t contain a deficit reduction plan.
• In 1995 there was a five-day shutdown, when President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution by the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time. It had plenty of things he didn’t want in it, including raising Medicare premiums.
• From December 1995 to January 1996, there was a 21-day shutdown that again pitted Clinton against the then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Much of this shutdown involved semantics–Clinton was using Office of Management and Budget numbers to balance his budget, while Congress insisted he use the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.
• The most recent government shutdown, in 2013, under President Barack Obama, lasted 16 days. Obamacare was the crux of the issue–the Republican-controlled House didn’t want to fund the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate did.

What Actually Happens During a Shutdown?

Much of what happens during a government shutdown is dictated by the Antideficiency Act, a law originally enacted in 1884 and amended in 1950. According to Andrew Cohen of the Atlantic it is:

a collection of statutory and administrative provisions, really–that forbid federal officials from entering into financial obligations for which they do not have funding, like paying the salaries of their employees or buying the things they need to run the government. It’s also the law that wisely permits certain ‘essential’ government functions–like the military and the courts, for example–to keep operating even in the absence of authorized legislative funding.

So, one of the most notable effects of a government shutdown is on federal government employees. Essentially, government workers are split into a few different groups–those who are “essential” to keep daily life in the United States functioning, and those who aren’t. Those who aren’t include people who operate our national parks and large chunks of lower and mid-level staff at agencies and offices. They are furloughed, without pay, until whenever the government shutdown ends. Workers who stay on probably don’t get their pay on time. And a common point of contention is that members of Congress are still paid, even if there is a shutdown. It was estimated by Standard & Poor’s that the 2013 shutdown cost the economy approximately $24 billion.

Other effects of a shutdown can include delayed Social Security payments, no processing of travel documents like new passports, no processing of applications for things like Medicare, research for certain agencies like the CDC, and certain types of federal loans end up frozen. However, the TSA, Post Office, and active military are all certain to continue functioning.

Of course, some areas are more affected than others. Washington D.C., as a city that is in many ways controlled by the federal government, is pretty hard hit. Check out this video from the New York Times to learn more:

Conclusion

A “government shutdown” sounds quite a bit scarier than it actually is. It doesn’t signal anarchy, or the apocalypse, but rather a temporary (but certainly annoying) halt to some of our government’s day-to-day functions. That being said, it’s not great for those who are particularly affected–like the hundreds of thousands of workers who suddenly have to go for an indeterminate period without pay. It costs the economy quite a bit of money. And it disrupts an already tumultuous funding process for the federal government. It’s unclear when the next shutdown will be, but at this point it seems like it’s become a regular factor in Washington.

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 What Does a “Government Shutdown” Entail? appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns from a two-week recess–the Senate returns on Monday, the House Tuesday–its legislative to-do list is stuffed to the brim. President Donald Trump is expected to propose a tax plan on Wednesday. He has suggested a revamped version of the Republican health care plan, which failed to hit the House floor for a vote last month, could be introduced this week. But foremost on Congress’ agenda: passing a government spending bill and staving off a government shutdown, a prospect that would be deeply embarrassing for an administration that will see its 100th day in office on Saturday.

Funding for the government, absent a spending agreement, is set to run out on Friday. To avoid a shutdown–which last occurred in 2013 when congressional Republicans and former President Barack Obama were deeply divided–the White House will have to come to an agreement with Congress. Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill differ with the administration in their spending priorities, especially when it comes to Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Many GOP lawmakers, and most, if not all, Democrats oppose paying for the wall with funds from the government’s coffers. Trump is adamant on following through on a promise that he sees as central to his election victory, however. On Sunday morning, the president reiterated his promise that Mexico will pay for the wall but asked for funding in the meantime:

Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a security hawk who is generally seen as a hard-liner on immigration, recently said the wall will get funded “one way or another.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, said: “We expect money for border security in this bill.” Priebus added: “And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.”

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, also insists the administration will push hard for the border wall to be included in a final budget agreement. “We want our priorities funded and one of the biggest priorities during the campaign was border security, keeping Americans safe and part of that was a border wall,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Mulvaney did add, however, that Trump would sign a bill that did not include funding for the wall. “I don’t think anybody is trying to get to a shutdown. Shutdown is not a desired end. It’s not a tool. It’s not something that we want to have,” he said.

On Friday, the administration floated a proposal to bridge the divide with Democrats–whose support for a final budget deal is vital to keeping the government afloat–on the border wall issue. For each dollar spent on the wall, according to the administration’s offer, the government would spend a dollar on Obamacare subsidies. Through a spokesman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said the trade-off idea was a “complete non-starter.”

Trump, who is still hoping to secure a legislative achievement by his 100-day mark, sent a tweet on Sunday morning that encapsulated his lack of leverage heading into the budget battle with Democrats:

ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Border Wall: the Issue That Could Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

A new video supposedly released by the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab has mall-goers in the United States, Canada, and U.K. on alert.

In the six-minute video, a disguised member of the Somali terror group affiliated with al-Qaeda called for attacks on the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Canada, and the Oxford Street shopping area in London. Most sources have taken down the video, but you can see a still from it in the tweet below.

Mall of America increases security after al-Shabaab threat: http://t.co/pWu6sX374y – @PierreTABC pic.twitter.com/y1bwB7J3e1

— ABC News (@ABC) February 23, 2015

This is the same organization that claimed responsibility for the horrific four-day-long attack on Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that killed at least 67 civilians in 2013. The speaker in the video allegedly celebrates this attack, showing graphic images while accusing Kenyan troops in Somalia of committing abuses against Somali Muslims. He also claims al-Shabaab was responsible for the Friday attack on a hotel in Somalia’s capital.

Using Westgate as a warning for other malls, an image of the Mall of America is shown in the video alongside its GPS coordinates, sparking a swift response from mall officials. They have already begun to beef up security and are asking shoppers to stay vigilant telling CNN:

We take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately. We have implemented extra security precautions; some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be.

In light of the Westgate attack, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI should be taking this video seriously. However, they initially downplayed the threat, releasing a joint statement Sunday saying that they were not “aware of any specific, credible plot against the Mall of America or any other domestic commercial shopping center.” They went on to say in the statement:

In recent months, the FBI and DHS have worked closely with our state and local public safety counterparts and members of the private sector, to include mall owners and operators, to prevent and mitigate these types of threats.

DHS Chief Jeh Johnson appeared on several Sunday news shows to address questions on the potential terror threat and reassure the American public that it’s “still ok to shop.” With each of his messages on vigilance, he ended with explaining why now, more than ever, DHS needs its $40 billion funding approved before the February 27 deadline. If gridlocked lawmakers fail to agree in the next three days, the department will be left with no funding while hundreds of thousands of employees are forced to report to work without pay. Congress’ unwillingness to agree is the same kind of embarrassing display that led to the 16-day-long federal government shutdown in October 2013.

So far, no mall attacks have been reported since the release of the video, but shoppers are still being urged to be careful and keep an eye out for suspicious behavior. Unfortunately, judging the legitimacy of terror threats sent through videos has become even harder when some, like those from ISIS, prove to be far too real.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mall of America Threatened in Al-Shabaab Terrorist Video appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the government reopened and raised the debt ceiling. YAY! We don’t all have to worry about getting flushed down the proverbial economic toilet.

At least not for another three months, when Congress has decided to do this all again.

It’s like a quarterly, let’s-freak-everyone-the-fuck-out party.

Awesome. (Not really.)

Anyway! Now that the government has reopened for a little while, some of the nation’s most influential businessmen are speaking out about it. And you know what they’re saying?

Who the hell cares?!

No, but that’s really what they’re saying.

In a recent interview with Jason Calacanis, former Facebook employee and venture-capitalist millionaire Chamath Palihapitiya claimed that the government was pretty much useless—so who gives a crap if it shuts down? According to him, corporations hold the real power in the U.S. these days.

“Companies are transcending power now,” said Palihapitiya. “We are becoming the eminent vehicles for change and influence, and capital structures that matter. If companies shut down, the stock market would collapse. If the government shuts down, nothing happens and we all move on, because it just doesn’t matter.”

This is interesting, folks.

Palihapitiya’s words are both frighteningly true and laughably false, all at the same time.

On the one hand, it’s true that for many of us, life continued as usual, despite the government shutdown. For example, as I interviewed folks last week for a book I’m writing about conservatism in present-day America, many of them had almost zero knowledge about the government shutdown.

Why not?

Because they were busy, and hadn’t been paying much attention to the news. Oh, and because it must not really matter anyway, if the only way they could know about the shutdown was by devoting a portion of their day to catching up with CNN (or Fox News, unfortunately). Their daily lives weren’t affected at all.

But, if Facebook—or some other multi-billion dollar corporation—had suddenly gone belly-up, these folks would know about it. Absolutely. Remember the financial crash of 2008? When the economy flounders, so does everyone else in the United States.

Corporations, whether or not they’re functioning properly, make people pay attention. But a white, domed building filled with a bunch of bickering Congress people? Not so much.

But that doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t matter, as Palihapitiya claims. This government shutdown was relatively short-term, and had it remained closed for a longer period of time, many more people would have felt the burn.

Nonetheless, tons of people were seriously affected. Boatloads of government employees were furloughed without pay, and millions of people who receive some form of government assistance were left out in the cold.

So, when Jason Calacanis tweets about how little the government shutdown matters—echoing the same sentiments as his interview subject, Palihapitiya—we can just grit our teeth and laugh at the skewed viewpoint of the über-rich.

Is the shutdown proving to many that the government really doesn’t do that much for them? Have you been impacted personally yet? Just asking. (@Jason)

Because honestly, Jason, lots of people were personally impacted by the government shutdown. But they were probably women, or poor, or of color, or all of the above. And you’re none of those things. Your crass assumption that, just because you haven’t been affected then clearly no one has, is hilariously out of touch.

Except it’s not that hilarious, because, let’s face it—you have a ton of power.

While Jason and Palihapitiya might be wrong about the government being inconsequential, they’re right about one thing. Big money corporations matter A LOT. They have the power to make or break our economy, and by extension, to make or break all of our lives. If the economy tanks, we’re all going down with it. At least, those of us who aren’t rich enough to charter a private jet out the mess.

And the lower down we are on the socio-economic ladder, the further we’ll fall if the economy goes to shit. Poor people, women, people of color, queer people, disabled people—the list can go on—will be hit the hardest by a major economic stumble.

So, it’s not really that funny when venture capitalist millionaires prove themselves to be incredibly out of touch. Because they have the power to make or break our economy and our livelihoods. They need to be at least mildly aware of what it’s like down here, in order to keep what’s going on up there from destroying us all.

So, Mark Zuckerberg and friends? Please check your privilege. While you earn your billions, we still need to pay our rent.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Victoria Pickering via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Facebook Pays Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.

It should go without saying that shutting down the government is not a good idea. It’s not good for the people of the United States, nor is it good internationally. Capital is stagnant, as seen with the plummeting stock market; and the idea that it is acceptable to stop something if you don’t like it is not only repulsive but is inherently being instilled in the minds of American citizens. As a functional citizen in the United States it is imperative to rethink government shutdowns.

 It is inevitable that the government was built to shut down because Congress can bring such a conversation to the table regarding the looming debt ceiling, and in this particular situation, Affordable Care Act. If a provision like this exists, it will unfortunately be used, often for the wrong reason. The trending question across the United States, and even the world is, “Why did the Government shutdown?” I have the answer.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly gave Congress one key responsibility, the power of the purse. This is the concept that provides Congress with the power to pass bills to fund the government. When they do not pass these bills, the government cannot run.

What is interesting, is that some services in the government are still funded. These are deemed as necessary expenses such as Social Security and Air Traffic Control. These are obviously viewed as essential expenditures.

What is also viewed as a necessary expenditure is that both Congress and the President still are paid—which is outrageous. Essentially, congressmen do not have to work and will be paid for just sitting around.

Members of the House came together in a moment of rare bipartisanship to pass a bill, by a vote of 407 to 0, approving back pay for furloughed government workers. It is funny how easy it is pass such legislation.

It is blatantly clear that this system is wrong. We should care that the system is broken because our government is inactive while we, the taxpayers, are still paying for our government.

It is necessary for the United States to have a checks and balance system in order to maintain a stable democracy—the power of the purse is one of those institutions. But the method in which essential expenditures are determined must be reviewed.

[CNN] [Washingtonpost] [Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Rich Renomeron via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shutdown Woes: Rethinking a Broken System appeared first on Law Street.

On September 30, I logged into Facebook and saw the most peculiar post.  A friend of mine works for the federal government, and his status read: “I really hope I can go to work tomorrow.”

On a normal Monday, that would be the weirdest sentiment.  I’m used to seeing complaints about how the week is off to a slow start, or how the weekend is too long. Those statements are expected (and usually true).  This post, though, was different.

While there was an air of lightheartedness in the post, there also was a sense of concern about the uncertain future.

As I type this, the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown.  Approximately 800,000 people find themselves out of work due to a government-mandated furlough (leave without pay).

Here’s a quick and dirty recap of the past week: the marketplace for providers to offer their services to the hundreds of thousands of people now eligible for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) opened on October 1, 2013.  The Democrat-controlled Senate approved a version of the appropriations bill that would fund the government.  On Friday, September 27, the Republican-led House responded with their own version of the bill, which also funded the government if key provisions of the Affordable Care Act were cut.  In a move to signal that he is playing hardball, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the Senate home for the weekend, meaning the House’s version wouldn’t even be considered until Monday.  Monday was the last available day for compromise to be reached without a government shutdown.  This meant that the House would not receive the Senate’s revisions until later on Monday, and would have little time to vote before the shutdown took effect at 11:59 p.m.

Speaker of the House John Boehner accused the Senate and the Obama Administration of putting partisan politics before the needs of the public.  The Democrats responded with the exact same accusation.  A stalemate occurred, and that is where we presently find ourselves.

Instead of attempting to compromise, various members of both parties are speaking to the press to posture themselves in a favorable light to their constituents.  These members of Congress are failing to realize that while they offer sound bites to various media outlets, their positive spin will never outweigh forcing almost one million Americans out of work.

It’s going to be hard to be reelected when sentiments like this one from the Washington Post: “We’re very hardworking people- we do a lot for people across the country.  And I feel that we’re obviously being used as a political pawn, but we’re also not being valued for what we do.”

It sucks when Congress can’t get their stuff together for the hardworking people they’re supposed to serve.

What does the shutting down of the government entail?  It’s essentially commandeering the Titanic, post-iceberg.  You’re in control of a sinking ship, but you’re coasting along until it sinks.  To slow down the sinking process, various items are being thrown overboard.  How does the government cruise?  By cutting the hours, and thus the payment, of your friends, neighbors, parents, siblings, and possibly you.

“Isn’t a shutdown the equivalent of a snow day?”

Yes it is- at least for the first few days (I know much about unemployment, and the first two or three days are actually kind of sweet: catching up on TV, sleeping in, and going to the gym in the middle of the day are great).  As time wears on, reality rears its ugly head via the accumulation of bills.

In fact, this shutdown really puts things in perspective.  For the past few months, I’ve been complaining about being an unemployed JD.  My complaints have been numerous, considering I really have nothing to worry about: I have no bills, a free roof over my head (thanks mom and dad!), and the luxury of looking for work full-time.

Furloughed government employees are adults with families, tuition, mortgages, car payments, and future plans, all of which are funded by their salaries.  Salaries that, for now, they no longer receive. Most importantly, they want to work!

So, let’s just hope that Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid stop this stick-measuring test and make the best decision for the 800,000 people without income right now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [NoHoDamon via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When the Government Won’t Let Its Employees Work appeared first on Law Street.

The government has been shuttered for three days now, and things are already starting to look bleak.

I’ve written about how the GOP’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is really about a racist, sexist, elitist desire to keep privilege (and life’s basic necessities) concentrated among rich, white, straight men. And that’s what’ll happen if the Affordable Care Act gets defunded.

But even though Obamacare hasn’t been axed, those of us who are outside of privilege are already starting to feel the heat. While Congress engages in the world’s most irritating staring contest, government programs that disproportionately serve women and people of color are already starting to run dry.

Thanks, Hyperbole and a Half!

One of the first things to circle the drain are WIC payments. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been deemed a non-essential government service. That means, while the government is shut down, WIC’s doors will be closed. More than half of the country’s babies rely on WIC to receive proper nutrition, and their mothers are the ones who will be left with crying, hungry, and sick children.

I’m sorry, but how can feeding babies possibly be considered non-essential? That’s really just awful. Especially considering that Republicans added a “conscience clause” to their ridiculous, let’s-shut-down-the-government ransom bill that would cut women off from accessing contraceptive and other preventive health services.

So basically, the GOP is pushing legislation that would simultaneously result in more babies, while denying food to those who already exist. And who has to figure out how to survive in all this mess? Women. More specifically, poor women of color. I’m sure they really appreciate that, Ted Cruz.

 And it doesn’t stop there. Head Start programs, which provide early education to low-income children, might have to stop serving their students, depending on how long this government shutdown lasts. A handful of Head Start programs will get hit immediately, with the rest following suit as this game of Congressional chicken drags on. Again, we’re seeing the GOP push legislation that creates more kids, while denying education to the ones who are already here. And who has to pay the price? All the mothers who will skip work, and potentially miss out on wages, to care for their children who have been turned away from shuttered Head Starts.

And those wages are really important, especially if this shutdown lasts any substantial amount of time. As temperatures drop, heating bills will rise, and the Low Income Home Energy program — which disproportionately serves women — won’t be able to provide assistance. Neither will the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which is, once again, overwhelmingly used by women. Single mothers will have to decide between paying rent, feeding their children, or heating their homes. How can we allow that to happen?

All of this is happening because our elected Congress-people can’t — or won’t — do their jobs. This is professional incompetency at its finest, and it’s entirely unacceptable. But it also reveals a lot about our national state of affairs.

While the GOP may have started this ridiculousness with the goal of blocking legislation that would benefit underprivileged people, it’s clear that systematic inequality is already in place. Anyone who argues that racism and sexism are things of the past only needs to look at what’s happening right now to see that they’re wrong.

If racism and sexism were over, women and people of color wouldn’t be hit the hardest when our lawmakers fail to do their jobs. They wouldn’t be the ones who have to choose between feeding their children and heating their homes. And most importantly, those struggles would be making top headlines in news outlets across the country.

But that’s not the case. Women and people of color are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to this government shutdown, and they’re barely making any headlines about it. It’s no coincidence that veterans — who are mostly white and male — failing to receive government benefits has caused national outrage, while the single mothers who depend on WIC remain largely in the shadows.

As Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep women, people of color, queer people, and the poor disenfranchised, they wind up highlighting all of the ways that these communities are oppressed in the first place.

So thanks, guys. You’re making my job a little bit easier.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [cool revolution via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SHOCKING: Women Are Disproportionately Shut Out by the Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

Well folks, it happened. After a collective freak out from the media – and a collective yawn from the general public – the government shut down today. Not surprising.

If you’ve been keeping up with this latest political soap opera, you’ll know that House Republicans planned this ridiculousness months ago, when they refused to meet with House Democrats and Hash out their budgetary differences ahead of time.

You’ll also know that this government shutdown isn’t the end of the world. A ton of federal employees will be furloughed, possibly without pay, military troops will stop receiving paychecks, national parks will close, passport applications won’t get processed, and Social Security checks will probably be a bit delayed. Obamacare will still become law. And Ted Cruz will forever be known as the latest King of Crazytown. (I told you all that someone would replace Michele Bachmann!)

To the average American, some of these facts will be irritating, inconvenient, or downright awful. (Are you the poor soul who planned a Washington, D.C. vacation for this upcoming week? No panda for you!) And the economy will definitely take a dip. But overall, nothing too horrific.

But! Let’s not get too comfy in our government-shutdown-who-cares apathy. Even though this doesn’t mean our entire democracy will come crashing down around our shoulders, it does bring up some very interesting questions about who matters in our government.

Let’s start with Obamacare, shall we?

A few days ago, Ted Cruz filibustered Congress for 21 hours, talking about why Obamacare is an awful, terrible idea.

First of all Ted, trying to dismantle healthcare reform while engaging in a very medically irresponsible activity probably isn’t your smartest idea. Just something to think about.

Forrest knows what’s up.

Second of all, what is so awful about Obamacare? Why is Teddy over here torturing himself, and creating quite the media circus, over defunding it?

Here’s what’s so awful about it – Obamacare benefits mostly everyone, but mostly poor people and women. Who are, incidentally, often the same thing. Also people of color and queer folks. Again, many times the same thing. Who does it benefit the least? Rich people! White people! Men! Again – many times, one in the same.

Ted Cruz’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is reflective of a larger idea that’s present across both parties, but which has come to a particularly alarming head within the GOP. Poor people, women, people of color, and queer people don’t matter. They are not worth out tax dollars or our reform efforts, and bills – like Obamacare – that would benefit them are offensive. That’s a really classy concept, isn’t it?

Seriously. It’s pretty gross that House Republicans would rather the government shut down than to extend basic healthcare to folks who don’t have access to racial, gendered, or economic privilege.

Now, obviously, that’s pretty shitty. But since the whole government shutdown thing isn’t overly dire, it’s not really a big deal, right? Jerks will be jerks, can’t we call just roll our eyes and move on?

Not really. Very soon, this government shutdown won’t be our only problem. In just 17 days, Congress will have to vote to lift the United States’ debt ceiling. While this sounds like voting to allow the government to spend more and rack up more debt, that’s not at all what it means – instead, lifting the debt ceiling simply means voting to keep the American economy running.

Without lifting the debt ceiling, the U.S. won’t be able to pay any of its bills. That means indefinitely delayed Social Security checks, no more benefits for veterans, and no more paychecks for soldiers. Also, hundreds of thousands of companies that do business with the U.S. government won’t get paid, the cost of borrowing money will skyrocket, and the U.S. won’t be seen as a safe place for business or investment.

Basically the U.S.’ economy, and the global economy, would go kaput. You think 2008 was bad? Failing to lift the debt ceiling would be much, much worse. And guess what! The GOP doesn’t want to do it.

Unless of course, a whole bunch of entirely unreasonable demands are met. Halting healthcare reform, building an oil pipeline, and nixing the regulation of greenhouse gases all make the list. It reads, essentially, like Mitt Romney’s campaign platform.

But, you see, Mittens lost the 2012 election for a reason.

He wasn’t shy about his disdain for the less fortunate, for those of us who are outside of privilege. We all remember his comment about the 47 percent. And last November, we all collectively decided that his wasn’t the kind of attitude we wanted in the White House. The American people have spoken! This case should be closed.

Mitt.

But the GOP isn’t willing to let it go. Some of their other demands over the past few years have included eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood – which would leave thousands of women, mostly poor and of color, without access to necessary healthcare – slashing food stamp funding – a program that is already insufficient for making sure the poor don’t starve to death – and preserving or implementing a bunch of tax reforms that benefit the rich and screw the rest of us.

The pattern is very clear. To the GOP, political negotiation means demanding people who are outside of privilege be made as vulnerable as possible. It means crusading against women, poor folks, people of color, and the queer community. It means threatening political and economic ruin for the entire country if our lives and livelihoods aren’t seriously threatened.

So, even though this latest government shutdown isn’t the end of the world, it’s only one episode in an ongoing political drama. And in 17 days, things could get much, much worse.

Because today, the Republican Party has shown that it would rather shut down the government than support a whole bunch of disenfranchised citizens gaining access to healthcare.

What will they do on October 17th?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mount Rainier National Park via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s Why Republicans Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.