View original post
View original postWell we have actually defaulted before, back in spring of 1979 between two of the shutdowns. Something of an 'oops' moment more than brinksmanship but there is precedent. As to now, well I've no Crystal Ball. People are currently blaming the GOP more than the president as an average thing but they're both taking hits from the indies, obviously most GOP and Dem blame it entirely on the other side and they can bank on that support no matter how the wind blows. The indies though see this as a shads of gray argument with POTUS defending his unpopular bill and the GOP just being obstinate. In large measure the GOP's faring slightly worse in the public eye because Obama is seen as such a weak-kneed negotiator, especially post Syria/Russia that its assumed they are the ones not compromising since they think he rolls in a stiff breeze. As it drags on, I'd guess the GOP will be publicly saying what it wants and Obama will have to explain why he is standing his ground. If the GOP says "We want, in exchange for funding Obamacare, a removal of all the Exec Branch waivers granted from it" odds are good POTUS is screwed. The public is inclined to view those waivers as unfair and if he doesn't roll on them, in part, it makes Obamacare look even worse along with his position and makes it more like him desperately defending bad policy that has his name literally on it.
View original postThat's what I'd do anyway, demand all current and future waivers be subject to congressional approval within 90 days of it being granted by the exec and that congress can waiver anyone it wants by majority in both houses. It might not work and they might not do it. The government might shut down in 10 days, ask me in 11 and I'll tell you
View original postI'm not really inclined these days to argue politics much, but I find it odd to hear in the news certain people referring to ACA, which was passed in 2010 and which was upheld last year by the Supreme Court, as a "bill" instead of what it truly is at this moment, a law. The pedant in me finds the mislabeling of an active US law as a bill to be irritating. Better to claim it is bad law than a bad bill, since the latter is something that is not yet valid nor does it have any real force, unlike the former.
Yes and Ohio never had a referendum on Senate Bill 5, but the subsequent law, but everyone says "When SB5 was repealed" or "When we struck down SB5". Here's the actual language on my 2011 ballot, "A majority yes vote is necessary for Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 5 to be approved. Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 5 is a new law relative to government union contracts and other government employment contracts and policies."
Confusing eh? You'll even see respected reference material say things like 'becomes law when the President signs it' ignoring that bills become laws when governors sign them too or when city councils with no mayor or co-equal exec branch sign them.
Your quibble is acknowledged though and I won't jump someone else for being pedantic since its one of my own worst vices.
